The most dangerous moment in a study's life is the transfer into prose. Numbers get retyped, an analysis gets rerun "one last time," and the manuscript quietly drifts from the data it claims to describe. Neutropic closes that gap by drafting the paper from the record of what actually happened.
Methods that write themselves — honestly
Your methods section is assembled from the artifacts the study already produced: the design document, the cleaning log, the analysis plan and its deviations. Sample sizes, exclusion counts, and instrument details come from the record, not from memory — which means they're consistent across the abstract, the methods, and the tables.
Results bound to the analyses
Every statistic in the draft is linked to the analysis that produced it. Figures and tables are publication-styled and carry their provenance — the code, the data snapshot, the model. When a co-author asks where a number came from, the answer is in the number.
Revision without drift
Peer review means rerunning things. In Neutropic, a revision — excluding a site, adding a covariate, updating with new data — reruns the affected pipeline and updates every dependent number, figure, and sentence together. The response letter can state precisely what changed and why, because the diff exists.
Ready for submission, ready for scrutiny
- Drafts export to Word and LaTeX with journal-styled references.
- Figures export at publication resolution with their source code attached.
- A reproducibility bundle — data, code, and environment — is one click, sized for a repository like OSF.
The paper you submit is not a description of your study. It's a view of it.
