科学論文のAI査読

Upload your manuscript for source-linked scientific feedback, a literature check, and actionable revision suggestions.

AIによる包括的な科学論文分析

PeerReviewerAIは、先進的な人工知能を活用して研究論文、修士論文、博士論文、学術原稿の詳細な査読を提供します。当社の自動査読システムは6つのカテゴリーのエラーを検出し、科学的方法論を評価し、具体的なフィードバックを提供します――数週間ではなく数分で。

機能

Error Detection Categories

詳細な科学的評価

A structured assessment of the manuscript, its evidence, and useful next revisions.

Review in 10+ Languages

Feedback follows the manuscript language. Language alone does not determine a journal style guide.

使い方

  1. 論文をアップロード: Upload DOCX, PDF, TXT, DOC, ODT or RTF.
  2. Start your review: Your first review is free, with no card or checkout. Later reviews show the price before analysis.
  3. Follow the agents: See source retrieval, manuscript analysis, finding verification and document preparation as they happen.
  4. Read and download: Read the literature review and scientific findings, then download the report and annotated manuscript.

よくある質問

AI査読はどのように機能しますか?

A literature reviewer gathers and compares sources, a scientific reviewer drafts anchored findings, a verifier checks them, and an editorial agent synthesizes the result. Their stages and findings appear in a live activity log.

どのような種類の学術論文を査読できますか?

当サービスは、研究論文、学術雑誌論文、学会論文、修士論文、博士論文、文献レビュー、ケーススタディ、技術報告書を、STEM、社会科学、人文科学、医学、工学を含むすべての学術分野で対応しています。

AI分析の精度はどのくらいですか?

Findings are checked against the manuscript and retrieved sources, with uncertain issues marked explicitly. This process can still miss problems or make incorrect judgments; the sample shows its actual output and evidence.

Does language determine the journal standard?

No. Review language is detected automatically, but a journal style guide cannot be inferred from it. The current review focuses on scientific arguments, evidence, structure and language.

査読にはどのくらいの時間がかかりますか?

Time depends on manuscript length, literature retrieval and the verification passes. Progress is shown during analysis.

査読をダウンロードできますか?

Yes. Download the full report as DOCX and your annotated manuscript in its uploaded format: DOCX, PDF, TXT, DOC, ODT or RTF. PDF uses comments on the original pages; DOCX uses tracked changes. Legacy office conversion can change layout. Apple Pages files must first be exported.

研究論文の質を向上させる準備はできましたか?

今すぐ原稿をアップロードして、エラー検出、方法論評価、専門家の推奨を含む詳細なAI査読を数分で受け取りましょう。

科学論文のAI査読

Upload your manuscript for source-linked scientific feedback, a literature check, and actionable revision suggestions.

始める

First full review free · no card required

対応決済 · Visa · Mastercard · Amex · Discover · UnionPay · JCB · Diners

機能

Scientific feedback with sources, verification and edits you can inspect.

01

迅速な分析

数日待つ代わりに、数分で査読が完了

02

10以上の言語

Review in the language of your manuscript

03

6 Review Categories

論理、算術、綴り、句読点、表、文体

04

Your annotated manuscript

Get comments and suggested changes in the format you uploaded

AIによる包括的な科学論文分析

PeerReviewerAIは、先進的な人工知能を活用して研究論文、修士論文、博士論文、学術原稿の詳細な査読を提供します。当社の自動査読システムは6つのカテゴリーのエラーを検出し、科学的方法論を評価し、具体的なフィードバックを提供します――数週間ではなく数分で。

Six review categories

論理的エラー

論理の飛躍、根拠のない主張、循環論法、データと結論の矛盾、証拠に裏付けられていない議論を検出します。

算術的エラー

Flags numerical inconsistencies for review. Mathematical and statistical claims may need independent calculation.

綴りのエラー

Suggests corrections to clear language errors while preserving scientific notation.

句読点と文法

読点、セミコロン、コロン、引用符、括弧の使用法、および学術文書における言語固有の文法規則を分析します。

表・図のエラー

Examines available table content and PDF figures; embedded DOCX objects may need manual inspection.

文体上の問題

科学的文体の一貫性、受動態の使用、用語の統一性、同語反復、冗長性、および全体的な学術的トーンを評価します。

詳細な科学的評価

A structured assessment of the manuscript, its evidence, and useful next revisions.

I

新規性評価

Compares the contribution with selected primary sources and distinguishes prior work from later developments.

II

関連性評価

研究テーマの時宜性、科学界にとっての実践的・理論的意義を分析します。

III

構成評価

標準的な学術構成への準拠を確認します:序論、文献レビュー、方法論、結果、考察、結論。

IV

方法論評価

手法の妥当性、実験デザインの正確性、サンプルの十分性、再現性、研究の限界を審査します。

V

包括的な要約

論文のテーマ、研究目的、使用方法、主要な結果、結論を網羅した詳細な要約を生成します。

VI

Revision Advice

Prioritizes changes for the author, with reasons and unresolved questions.

Review in 10+ Languages

Feedback follows the manuscript language. Language alone does not determine a journal style guide.

対応形式.docx.pdf.txt.doc.odt.rtf

PDF review: up to 20 MB and 100 pages. DOCX/TXT uploads: up to 200 MB, subject to the analysis budget. Oversized documents are not silently shortened.

English

EN

Deutsch

DE

Français

FR

Español

ES

Italiano

IT

Português

PT

Türkçe

TR

Nederlands

NL

Svenska

SV

Polski

PL

Four agents, one grounded review

Each agent has a specific task. You can follow their actual progress and inspect the sources and reasons behind the final advice.

01

Literature reviewer

Finds primary research and companion papers, reads available full texts and writes a dedicated comparison with prior work. Later developments are identified separately.

02

Scientific reviewer

Examines the manuscript’s arguments, methodology, numerical claims and language. Each candidate finding must point to an exact source passage.

03

Finding verifier

Checks candidates against the manuscript and retrieved sources. Unsupported findings are removed; uncertain findings are marked for further review.

04

Editorial synthesizer

Builds the final assessment from retained findings and prioritizes revisions. The export step adds comments and supported language changes to your manuscript.

Agents perform separate stages of the review. Their agreement is not independent experimental or mathematical proof.

Your manuscript, returned in its format

DOCX → tracked changes and comments. PDF → highlights and comments on the original pages. TXT → inline review notes. DOC, ODT and RTF → annotated output in the same format through office conversion; check layout after download. For Apple Pages, export to a supported format first.

使い方

01

論文をアップロード

Upload DOCX, PDF, TXT, DOC, ODT or RTF.

02

Start your review

Your first review is free, with no card or checkout. Later reviews show the price before analysis.

03

Follow the agents

See source retrieval, manuscript analysis, finding verification and document preparation as they happen.

04

Read and download

Read the literature review and scientific findings, then download the report and annotated manuscript.

Sample Review: Susskind et al.

A fresh review of “Complexity Equals Action” (arXiv v3) by Brown, Roberts, Susskind, Swingle, and Zhao, generated by our updated system. Read the findings, evidence, and review limitations below. This is a retrospective analysis of a published paper, not a Physical Review Letters editorial decision.

AI peer review · retrospective sample

“Complexity Equals Action”

Adam R. Brown; Daniel A. Roberts; Leonard Susskind; Brian Swingle; Ying Zhao

AI recommendation to the author: revise

arXiv:1509.07876v3 · 10 May 2016 · 2026-09-18 (UTC)

Original PDF supplied to the review and verification passes. Targeted literature retrieval and companion-paper reading included; sources are listed below. Retained findings are shown with their evidence.

“Supported” identifies findings retained after the verification pass. The assessment is revision advice for the author.

Download the complete review and run metadata (JSON)

Your review at a glance

Start with the assessment, then explore the evidence and next steps.

6
findings
0
need verification
6
sources

Overall assessment

The manuscript contains an original and highly relevant conjecture supported by a substantial companion analysis. The requested revisions do not require expanding the letter into a full technical paper. They principally require sharpening the novelty claim, specifying the conventional status of the complexity normalization, limiting Lloyd-bound and dimensional statements to the regimes actually examined, and presenting charged hair as a proposed rather than demonstrated resolution.

Read the full analysis (1 more passages)

With these scope and wording corrections, the letter would give a more accurate and compelling account of the evidence for CA duality.

What the paper does

This short letter proposes the complexity–action (CA) conjecture, C=A_WDW/(πℏ), identifying holographic state complexity with the on-shell action of the corresponding Wheeler–DeWitt patch. It presents late-time tests for neutral, rotating, and charged AdS black holes, together with perturbative tests involving static shells and shock waves. Its strongest result is the universal late-time neutral-black-hole rate dA/d(t_L+t_R)=2M, independent of horizon size and spacetime dimension.

Read the full analysis (1 more passages)

The cited companion paper supplies the detailed calculations intentionally omitted from the letter, including the neutral, charged, rotating, shell, shock-wave, and tensor-network analyses [E1]. The central claims are important and suitable for a short conjecture letter, but several statements should be narrowed so that conventionally normalized, late-time evidence is not presented as an unrestricted theorem.

Novelty

The historical novelty is substantial but should be stated precisely. The general association between black-hole interior growth and complexity, the maximal-volume prescription, and the shock-wave/switchback benchmarks predate this manuscript [E2]. The new contribution is the replacement of maximal ERB volume by the action of the full WDW patch, eliminating the configuration-dependent auxiliary length scale and producing a universal late-time coefficient for neutral black holes [E1][E2].

Read the full analysis (1 more passages)

The claim that CA “subsumes” CV is stronger than demonstrated: the two are distinct bulk prescriptions that share scaling behavior and pass many of the same tests, rather than one being derived from the other. Later work on null-boundary actions, formation complexity, divergences, and complete time dependence provides retrospective qualification rather than contemporaneous prior art [E3][E4][E5][E6].

Methodology

The manuscript appropriately presents a conjecture supported by nontrivial semiclassical checks rather than claiming a derivation from boundary CFT complexity. The detailed action calculations delegated to [9] are present in the companion paper: they derive the arbitrary-dimensional neutral result, the four-dimensional charged result, the rotating BTZ result, static-shell time dilation, and single, multiple, finite-energy, and localized shock-wave behavior [E1].

Read the full analysis (3 more passages)

Thus, their omission from this short letter is not a methodological gap in the research program. The principal unresolved issue is the boundary definition of complexity: the numerical equality depends on the gate set, approximation tolerance, reference state, and continuum regulator, while the factor of π is a normalization convention [E1]. Accordingly, the results presently support a consistently normalized relative growth prescription, not a uniquely defined microscopic equality.

The neutral universality is established only at late times; the companion paper reports zero early-time action growth in the two-sided neutral case [E1], and later full-time analysis finds additional transient behavior [E6]. The rotating and charged calculations are dimension-specific—BTZ in 2+1 dimensions and charged black holes in 3+1 dimensions—so their extension to arbitrary dimension remains conjectural.

Finally, the large charged-black-hole discrepancy is not resolved quantitatively: hair is a plausible proposed explanation, but the companion paper’s superconducting analysis is qualitative rather than a complete hairy-WDW calculation [E1].

Relevance

The manuscript addresses a foundational problem in holography: how continuing black-hole interior growth may be encoded after ordinary boundary observables have equilibrated. The proposed relation connects quantum information, semiclassical gravity, tensor networks, and black-hole dynamics. The universal neutral result and the simpler treatment of shock-wave configurations make the proposal especially relevant.

Read the full analysis (1 more passages)

The “fastest computers” interpretation is potentially influential, provided it is consistently described as a conjectural, late-time conclusion for the semiclassical examples considered rather than as an all-time statement about all black holes.

Structure

The presentation is concise and generally effective for a short letter. Figures 1 and 2 clearly depict the relevant WDW patches for neutral/collapsing and charged geometries, respectively, and the progression from the conjecture to neutral, rotating, charged, shock-wave, and shell tests is coherent. The division of technical labor with the companion paper is legitimate, because that paper explicitly supplies the detailed derivations [E1].

Read the full analysis (1 more passages)

A brief roadmap to the companion paper would nevertheless make this division clearer. The prose requires two small corrections: delete the extra “be” in “good reasons to be believe,” and replace the awkward shock-wave sentence with a direct formulation such as “Both the complexity-volume duality of [3,7] and the complexity-action duality proposed here reproduce the matching of these two growths.”

よくある質問

AI査読はどのように機能しますか?
A literature reviewer gathers and compares sources, a scientific reviewer drafts anchored findings, a verifier checks them, and an editorial agent synthesizes the result. Their stages and findings appear in a live activity log.
どのような種類の学術論文を査読できますか?
当サービスは、研究論文、学術雑誌論文、学会論文、修士論文、博士論文、文献レビュー、ケーススタディ、技術報告書を、STEM、社会科学、人文科学、医学、工学を含むすべての学術分野で対応しています。
AI分析の精度はどのくらいですか?
Findings are checked against the manuscript and retrieved sources, with uncertain issues marked explicitly. This process can still miss problems or make incorrect judgments; the sample shows its actual output and evidence.
Does language determine the journal standard?
No. Review language is detected automatically, but a journal style guide cannot be inferred from it. The current review focuses on scientific arguments, evidence, structure and language.
査読にはどのくらいの時間がかかりますか?
Time depends on manuscript length, literature retrieval and the verification passes. Progress is shown during analysis.
査読をダウンロードできますか?
Yes. Download the full report as DOCX and your annotated manuscript in its uploaded format: DOCX, PDF, TXT, DOC, ODT or RTF. PDF uses comments on the original pages; DOCX uses tracked changes. Legacy office conversion can change layout. Apple Pages files must first be exported.

研究論文の質を向上させる準備はできましたか?

今すぐ原稿をアップロードして、エラー検出、方法論評価、専門家の推奨を含む詳細なAI査読を数分で受け取りましょう。

査読を開始