Stop Sending Bad Papers to Your Reviewers
Send us one paper. In one working day you get back every reference checked against Crossref, PubMed and OpenAlex — the invented ones, the wrong ones and the retracted ones, named. $18. No account, no contract, no sales call.
Prices in USD. Every check on this page is add-to-cart. Nothing here needs a meeting.
Five things that go wrong before review even starts
Pick the one that sounds like your last month.
“Someone found a reference in one of our published papers that does not exist. Nobody had checked.”
→ Are These References Real? — $18, every reference, one day.“Forty papers are sitting in the system. Most should never have been submitted, and I have to read every one to find out which.”
→ Should You Reject This Paper? — $25, back in two days, with the letter written.“I do not have reviewers. I have six names in my address book and four of them stopped replying.”
→ Your Own Reviewer List — 150 to 400 checked names, and the file is yours.“A reviewer asked whether the figure in panel B is the same image as panel D. I could not tell.”
→ Do the Figures Match the Text? — $55, checked both ways.“The submitting author has no ORCID, a free email address, and suggested three reviewers I cannot find anywhere.”
→ Is the Author Real? — $20, authors and suggested reviewers verified.An extract from a real reference report
Anonymised, and shortened to four lines out of forty-seven. This is the whole product: a verdict per reference, and a correction list you can forward without rewriting it.
| Reference as submitted | Verdict | What we found |
|---|---|---|
| 12. Kumar S, Ahmed R, Lin W. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(15):1822–31. | Does not exist | No record in Crossref, PubMed or OpenAlex. That volume and issue exist; those page numbers belong to a different paper. |
| 19. Okafor A, Reyes M. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9(4):e512. | Does not match | The article exists. Second author is Silva R, not Reyes M. Year and pages are correct. |
| 26. Tanaka H, Weber J, Oyelaran B, et al. Nat Commun. 2018;9:4471. | Retracted | Retracted in 2023. The manuscript cites it as current evidence and does not mention the retraction. |
| 31. Blomqvist K. Scand J Public Health. 2020;48(6):601–9. | Verified | Authors, year, journal, volume and pages all match the record. |
Summary line from the same report: 47 references checked. 1 not found. 3 do not match the record. 1 retracted and cited as current. Self-citation 21 per cent (10 of 47). No single source is over-represented.
Also attached: a numbered correction list addressed to the author, ready to send as it is.
Six checks. Order any one of them on its own.
No minimum, no contract, no account to open. Start with a single paper and see what arrives.
Are These References Real?
For: invented references, wrong references, and references that were retracted years ago.
- Every reference checked against Crossref, PubMed and OpenAlex
- Told plainly: does not exist, does not match, retracted, or fine
- Self-citation rate and any single source doing too much work
- A numbered correction list you can send straight to the author
- One working day, however long the list
Should You Reject This Paper?
For: papers that should never reach a reviewer, and appeals you have to defend.
- Scored out of 100 on scope, completeness, ethics statements, reporting guideline, similarity and fatal design flaws
- A clear recommendation: reject, send back, or send to review
- A rejection letter already written, with reasons, ready for your signature
- Two working days
Is the Author Real?
For: paper mills, invented affiliations, and suggested reviewers who are really the author.
- Authors checked against ORCID and their stated institution
- Suggested reviewers tested for free-email and identity red flags
- Known paper-mill patterns checked across the manuscript
- Two working days
Do the Figures Match the Text?
For: reused images, spliced bands, and figures whose numbers contradict the results.
- Checked for duplication, splicing, cloning and reuse from earlier papers
- Checked against the text: group sizes, error bars, p-values, units
- Checked for print: truncated axes, missing scale bars, colour-blind safety, resolution
- Annotated sheet with one query per problem, marked serious or minor
- Three working days
Does the Cited Paper Actually Say That?
For: real references that do not support the claim they are attached to.
- We open the cited papers and read them
- Ten claims: the ones holding up the hypothesis, the discussion opening, and any claim to be first
- Each returned as supported, partly supported, not supported, or not available to read
- A spot check, not a complete audit — we say so on the report
- Five working days
Your Own Reviewer List — First Build
For: journals with no reviewer list, only the editor’s address book.
- 150 to 400 researchers publishing in your field right now
- Each checked against ORCID, with an institutional email
- Tagged by subject, scored on recency and closeness to your scope
- Spread by country and institution reported — the evidence indexers ask for
- Loaded into your OJS and handed over as a spreadsheet you keep
Start with one paper. Move when it earns its place.
Nobody signs a screening contract on day one, and we do not ask you to. This is the order most journals actually go in.
One paper
Pick the paper you are least sure about and send that one. You get the report in a day and you have spent less than lunch.
Ten papers, credits that do not expire
Buy ten and send them as they arrive — this month, next quarter, whenever. A quiet period costs you nothing, so there is no reason to rush papers through.
Every submission, every month
We screen everything that arrives before your editor opens it, priced by how many papers you actually get. Cancel at thirty days.
Also available on any submission
| Service | Unit | Price | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Find Reviewers & Follow Up | per month, by volume | from $249 | Choose a tier |
| Your Own Reviewer List — Kept Current | per year | $899 | Add to cart |
| CONSORT / PRISMA / STROBE & Ethics Check | per manuscript | $60 | Add to cart |
| Statistical & Methodological Review | per manuscript | $150 | Add to cart |
| Managed Editorial Office | per month | $1,999 | Add to cart |
Four steps, and none of them are a sales call
Order the check
Add it to the cart and pay. You get an upload link by email straight away. No account, no onboarding call, no minimum number of papers.
Send the manuscript
Upload the file the author sent you, exactly as it is. If your journal runs on OJS, you can give us a reviewer-level account instead and we will fetch it ourselves.
Get the report
One to five working days depending on the check. You get a report written for an editor, not a data dump — plus, where it applies, a letter to the author already drafted.
You decide
Sign the letter, change it, or ignore the whole report. We never contact your authors, and nothing leaves your desk without you.
What editors ask before they order
Two things we will not pretend
We do not promise to catch everything
No screening service can guarantee it finds every fabricated reference, every altered image or every paper mill. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something. We tell you what we checked and what we found.
A flag is not an accusation, and the decision is not ours
A flagged reference or figure needs a human look, not a verdict — most turn out to be honest errors, and the report is written so you can ask the author without accusing them. Your editors keep final say on rejection, reviewers and acceptance.
Send us one paper and see what comes back
Eighteen dollars, one working day, no account and no contract. If it is useful, ten more cost $150.
Single checks and packs are add-to-cart. Only the reviewer-list build comes back as a written proposal.Check one paper — $18One working day. No account.
Add to cart