Find out what a reviewer would tell you. Before they tell you.
Can I Publish reads your manuscript with the same criteria real reviewers apply, and returns every point anchored to a verbatim quote from your text.
The file is deleted immediately once the text is extracted. The text, after 30 days. Nobody trains models on your manuscript.
The same manuscript, reviewed twice
On the left, what the two reviewers of a real article wrote. On the right, what the diagnosis flagged on that same manuscript in ninety seconds. The three entries match.
What came back · 2 reviewers
Review reports
Open review · verbatim
Reject · Approve with reservations
What you would have seen · minute 2
Diagnosis
Every point, with its verbatim quote
Major revision
Skip the wait, not the truth.
Most rejections are decided in the first few minutes of editorial reading. Not on the science, but on signs of an unfinished manuscript. You were always going to hear it. Can I Publish just makes sure you hear it today, not in eight months.
Built on real reviews. Not AI guesswork.
To know what a reviewer looks at, you have to read what reviewers write. We gathered a corpus of 10,749 open peer review reports on 3,703 published articles: public, citable reports, with no private material. Our criteria came out of that: the checklists, one per dimension of a manuscript, that the diagnosis applies to yours.
We tested it against the alternative: pasting your paper into a generic LLM. And every point comes anchored to a verbatim quote from your manuscript, verified by code: 90% of them, against 52% for human reviewers quoting from memory.
Corpus and coding verified on 29 July 2026. The full method, with interrater reliability.
Can I Publish vs other LLMs
How it was measured: prompts frozen before seeing a single result, half the articles held back, and the matching judged by a model from a different family.
Do you coordinate a group? The first pass is already done.
What you find in every draft before you even open it (the missing citations, the method that never says on what criterion it stopped, the conclusion that reaches past the data) is mechanical work that repeats with every new person. The diagnosis does it first, and the group works on top of it: each point is assigned to whoever will fix it, the assignment survives into the next version, and your conventions go into every review.
Five axes, each with a name.
First it detects your study design (quantitative, qualitative or mixed) and applies the matching criteria. Then it reviews these five axes.
- 01
- Methodological rigour
- Qualitative, quantitative and mixed designs, each with its own criteria. Half-described samples, missing saturation criteria, analyses the tables do not support, gaps between what the data show and what the text claims.
- 02
- Citations and references
- Orphan citations, phantom references, in-text calls that never reach the list, sources cited second-hand. The bibliographic hygiene an editor checks in the first few minutes.
- 03
- Theoretical argument
- Inferential leaps between what the source says and what the manuscript claims, a fragmented theoretical framework, conclusions that go beyond the available evidence.
- 04
- Presentation
- Structure and organisation, writing and clarity, editorial formatting, length and density. What makes a text read as finished or as a draft.
- 05
- Contribution
- Novelty and differentiation from what is already published, relevance of the contribution, and the overall assessment. The axis that answers «so why does this matter?».
And one separate output
Journal fit
Which journals take your kind of study and why: topic, method, article type. A ranking with the real reason for the fit, not a list of impact factors. It is not one of the five axes because it does not assess your manuscript, but its destination.
What it doesn’t do, said before you ask.
- It does not rewrite your text or fix your style. There are better and cheaper tools for that.
- It does not replace peer review: it anticipates it. Review assesses your scientific contribution; this points out what stops you reaching that assessment.
- It does not guarantee you will be accepted. Nobody can, and anyone who promises you that is selling you something else.
- It does not decide for you. It gives you the list and the verdict; sending or fixing is your call.
Request access for your group.
We are opening up by research group, not one person at a time. Leave us your email and what you work on, and we’ll let you know when your area comes up.