Run tasks

Mock peer review

Attach a manuscript, name the target journal, and get a journal-style mock peer review with /peer-review — journal profile, five reviewers with 1–5 scores, an editorial decision, a revision guide and recommended journals.

Start

text
/peer-review Mock-review the attached manuscript for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback.

Attach the manuscript as PDF, DOCX or Markdown (or point at a manuscript written in this project) and name the target journal. If you do not name one, Neutropic infers the most plausible journal from the manuscript and says so in the report. You can paste the journal's author guidelines into the message when its website cannot be read.

What happens

  • Journal profile — OpenAlex and Crossref metadata (ISSN, publisher, h-index, 2-year mean citedness, OA/APC, topics) plus the aims & scope and author-guideline pages read from the journal's site. Every submission rule in the report is tied to the page it came from; rules that could not be found are marked not verifiable, never guessed.
  • Comparable papers — the journal's recent papers on the manuscript's topic, cited as [n], and the other journals that publish similar work.
  • Deterministic checks — the manuscript against the journal's rules (word limit, abstract, structure, reference style, figures, data/ethics/preregistration statements), a sample of references verified at Crossref, and p-values recomputed from the reported test statistics (Deep).
  • Five reviewers — journal fit, methodology, domain expert, broader perspectives (ethics, generalizability, open science, practice) and a devil's advocate — score the manuscript 1–5 on fit · novelty · rigor · evidence · presentation · overall and list strengths, major and minor issues. Quotes of the manuscript are verified verbatim; findings that quote text not in the manuscript are dropped.
  • Editor — a handling editor issues the decision, resolves reviewer disagreements, writes the revision guide and recommends journals. Consistency is enforced: no Accept while a major issue stands.

What you get

<manuscript>_mock_review.md — Mock peer review completed:

  1. Editorial decision — Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject, with the editor's letter.
  2. Assessment summary — the 5 × 6 score matrix (disagreements flagged) and each reviewer's recommendation, strengths and issues (location · problem · evidence · fix).
  3. Revision guide — P0 (decides acceptance) / P1 (major) / P2 (minor) items with section, what, how, the reviewers who raised it and a rough effort; plus the submission-rule checklist.
  4. Recommended journals — the target journal and the venues with the most similar recent papers, with counts and metrics from the comparables step.
  5. Appendix — the journal profile and extracted rules, the comparable papers, the deterministic check results, and the reference list. Sentences carry [n] citations to the manuscript, the journal pages and the papers.

The document gets a decision badge in the files panel. A structured JSON (MockReview) is saved alongside for tooling.

Effort levels

  • Lite — two reviewers (journal fit, methodology), no reference or statistics checks: a quick screening.
  • Basic — all five reviewers, 8 comparable papers, 8 references checked.
  • Deep — 15 comparable papers, 15 references checked, recomputed statistics, and an independent second reviewer that reads the finished report once.

Notes

  • Publisher sites vary: Springer, Frontiers, PLOS, Taylor & Francis and DOAJ-listed journals are read directly; Elsevier, Wiley, SAGE, MDPI and APA block automated reading, so paste the guidelines if the rule checklist matters. Metrics still come from OpenAlex.
  • The review is a simulation for preparing a submission. It does not predict a real editorial outcome.

See also Review for the independent methodological review of a report produced in this project.

Review PreviousStudy workflow (end to end)Next