You did the research. Don't lose it on the statistics.
Find the methods and statistics problems while they are still yours to fix. You get a severity-scored report: two independent engines, 31 deterministic checks — 21 of them recomputing the numbers you reported — and every finding traced to your own text.
- Improve the paper before anyone else reads it
- Know where to soften a claim — and where you're underselling what you found
- Catch the numbers that don't agree — abstract against tables, results against conclusion
- Fewer revision rounds, and fewer months lost to them
$30 per manuscript. Commissioned methods review: $150–$400
Free to create an account — you only pay when you confirm a package for review. If we cannot deliver a usable report, the fee is refunded in full.
| 01 | Design / claim fit | Serious |
| 02 | Results / conclusion | Moderate |
| 03 | Statistical method | Serious |
| 04 | Reporting guideline | Mild |
| 05 | Numerical consistency | Critical |
▸ opened — the same trace stands behind every row In your Table 2In-hospital mortality — 4.2% vs 6.1% In your abstract“…mortality fell to 2.4%…” What to doYou revised the table but the abstract still carries the old figure. Reconcile them before a reviewer does. | ||
| 06 | Clinical verdict | Moderate |
| 07 | Contribution & positioning | Mild |
What we look at
Methods & statistical support
Whether the numbers hold up, and whether the design supports the kind of claim being made.
Integrity of the external record
Whether everything the paper asserts about the outside world holds — its citations, the prior work, the novelty claim.
Results and conclusions in step
Whether the conclusions match what the data actually showed — tighter where the data will not carry them, bolder where they will.
Compliance with methodology
Whether the paper meets the reporting standards its design and its target journal require.
An independent, outside read — statistical and methodological. The review before the reviewers.
Or start free with our abstract-deadline directory — 69 meetings, every date sourced →
Not sure it fits your paper? See what we'll recompute for your study →
Every manuscript that leaves carries your program's name.
Focus your reviewers. Reviewer time is the scarcest thing a department or an editorial office has, and it is spent badly when a methodological problem surfaces on the third pass. RigorMD gives one consistent methodological and statistical checkpoint before submission — so the reading your people do is the reading only they can do.
Authors keep their reports private. Leaders see adoption, workflow status, and aggregate usage — not findings or severity. The author gets a candid review they control; the program gets a common quality floor and fewer avoidable rejection cycles.
It isn't a chatbot's opinion of your paper.
The cheapest thing to do is paste your manuscript into a general-purpose AI and ask if it's any good. Here's what that misses — and a reviewer won't.
Catch the flaw first
A severity-scored report with deterministic statistical checks — grounded in your own quotes and numbers.
Check the revised draft
After you revise, the full review runs again — compared finding-by-finding with your first report: no longer flagged, still flagged, or new.
Two things you can use today, free. The paid review reads the whole manuscript.
Track the abstract deadlines that decide your calendar, and check that your citations resolve — no upload, and no account to browse a deadline or run a check. The $30 pre-submission review is the full instrument: an independent read of the whole manuscript — 31 deterministic checks plus a clinician + statistician appraisal.
Abstract deadlines
Abstract-submission deadlines for 69 research meetings across 24 clinical and surgical fields. Every deadline we show carries the society page it was checked against and the date; a meeting that hasn’t announced yet is listed as TBA rather than guessed at. Browse and download a calendar entry without an account, or sign in free to save meetings and get an email reminder before each one.
Browse the directory →Reference integrity
Do your DOIs and PMIDs actually resolve — and to the work you cited? The same reference layer the paid review runs, against Crossref, the DOI handle registry, and PubMed.
Check your references →Save months. Spend less. Submit something stronger.
The publication loop is slow, statistical review is scarce, and small methodological errors are common — and costly. RigorMD finds them before a reviewer does, so revision cycles get shorter and the decision letter holds fewer surprises.
Submission to publication runs from roughly 70 to 558 days across biomedical journals — and every revision or rejection round adds more. Catch the fatal flaw before a reviewer does.
Biostatistics expertise can be scarce, and academic statistical-support units report capacity constraints. Get a structured read when access is limited.
In one audit of orthopaedic journals, 17% of papers had a statistical error that could change the conclusion. Our deterministic layer recomputes the numbers it can and reconciles them against the text.
Biomedical retractions have quadrupled in 20 years. Some of what gets retracted begins as the kind of statistical or interpretive error we flag — and one weak paper can cast suspicion on a whole research group.
And because this is clinical research, the deepest reason is the simplest: a flawed statistic becomes flawed care. Cleaner evidence is better medicine.
Upload the package
Manuscript, tables, figures, supplement, cover letter, title page. PDF and DOCX. Confirm what's included.
Classify & adjudicate
We classify the study design and claim type, appraise the manuscript across six domains, and a separate literature layer positions it against retrieved prior work as a seventh.
Recompute & verify
Deterministic checks recompute p-values, denominators, percentages, and means where the reported numbers allow. Every finding is traced to a quote.
Severity-scored report
A reconciled, severity-scored report — emailed when ready, stored in your private dashboard.
Full validation is not instant. Most reports return by email after processing; larger packages take longer.
Seven domains, every manuscript. The first question is always: does the design support the claim?
Design / claim fit
Whether a causal, comparative, or equivalence claim is supported by the study design actually used.
Results / conclusion alignment
Whether the abstract, results, and conclusions agree — without spin or reframed null findings.
Statistical appropriateness
Models, power, missing-data handling, and multiplicity, matched to the design and endpoints.
Reporting guideline adherence
Design-specific reporting requirements, item by item, with the gaps named.
Numerical / statistical consistency
Whether numbers, denominators, p-values, intervals, tables, and text agree with one another.
Clinical interpretability / verdict
What a clinician or editor can legitimately take from the manuscript as written.
Contribution & literature positioning
Whether the manuscript's novelty and framing hold up against retrieved prior work — overstated firsts and unacknowledged priors flagged.
Every finding shows its work.
Every serious or critical finding is grounded in a direct quote or a recomputed number — so you can verify it, not just trust it.
“Surgical-site infection occurred in 18 of 90 patients (20.0%) in the bundle group versus 27 of 90 (30.0%) with standard care (χ² = 4.83; p = 0.028).”a constructed specimen — and this sentence is the check’s entire input
| study arm | SSI | no SSI | total |
|---|---|---|---|
| bundle | 18 | 72 | 90 |
| standard care | 27 | 63 | 90 |
| total | 45 | 135 | 180 |
≈ 58% of the headline gain would not survive a reverse-causation washout.
Read a full sample report →See every check we run →Try a free check yourself →
Three workflows. One rigor standard.
RigorMD serves authors preparing a manuscript, journals and publishers triaging submissions, and departments standardizing pre-submission QC across research groups.
Before and after peer review
Pre-submission review, reviewer-response scaffolds, and re-review for medical manuscript authors who need a methods-and-statistics second read.
Triage before review
Structured editorial decision support to route manuscripts, focus reviewer attention, and identify methods or statistical follow-up needs.
Protect the program's name
One consistent review across trainees, faculty, and clinical research groups, with author-private reports and aggregate adoption visibility.
An adjudication system. An independent read, deterministic checks, and your own words.
A reviewer's first property is independence. RigorMD had no hand in your paper — it exists only to find what a reviewer will. Each manuscript is appraised independently by two engines and reconciled into a consensus — disagreement is surfaced, not hidden. A deterministic layer recomputes statistics where the reported numbers allow, so a flag is a calculation you can check. Findings quote the manuscript directly and state, for every serious or critical issue, the direction of bias and its clinical consequence.
Tested against the public record: the engine independently found the documented reason PREDIMED was retracted →
One review, two readers. Every finding is written twice — a plain clinician line (what the study can and cannot support), with an inline “Why this matters statistically” bridge underneath — the bias mechanism and the remedy — and the RoB 2 / ROBINS-I domain and GRADE rationale in a demoted technical panel. And the paper's headline conclusion gets a plain calibration grade: the gap between how confidently the authors state it and how much certainty the evidence can carry. A careful study stated humbly reads well; overreach is the flag, not observational data.
Fully automated, and we show our work: no human reads your manuscript as part of the analysis (operational access is limited to logged security review). Two independent engines and recomputed statistics produce a report you can verify yourself; delivery timing varies by package complexity and service availability.
And we are explicit about the limits: the report distinguishes checked and passed from not checkable from the submitted files. Without raw data, some questions can't be answered — and we say so. The report flags for your judgment and does not promise journal acceptance.
No paper is perfect — every study makes compromises. We help you keep them to the ones your data actually forced, in language your reviewers and your statistician will both read.
RigorMD exists for a simple reason: too much of the published literature does not hold up under methodological scrutiny, and the expertise that would catch the problems before submission is scarce, gated, and unevenly distributed.
This goes deeper than a general-purpose model can. The system is purpose-built on the research-on-research literature, on statistical standards, and on the reporting guidelines journals actually enforce — and its reports are written in the register physicians read. Catch the avoidable flaws before a reviewer does, and spend the months a rejection cycle would have cost on the science instead.
Per report. Or licensed for your organization.
- Seven-domain severity scorecard
- Contribution & literature positioning — your novelty claims checked against retrieved prior work
- Deterministic statistical forensics
- Quote-grounded findings + suggested revisions
- PDF & web report; emailed when ready
- Usage-based pilots for manuscript QC programs
- Author-private reports with an administrative activity view
- Editorial triage workflows for journals and publishers
Launch pricing — current rates apply to any report you start now. Every report is fully automated — two independent engines plus deterministic checks, with no human review in the analysis. Delivery time varies with package complexity and service availability. Pricing details & author FAQ →
Before you upload.
What is RigorMD?
RigorMD is an automated pre-submission review for clinical research manuscripts. You upload a manuscript package — text, tables, figures, supplement — and receive a severity-scored methodological and statistical report before you submit to a journal: two independent engines appraise the paper across multiple passes, a deterministic layer recomputes your reported statistics, cited DOIs and PMIDs are resolved against Crossref and PubMed, and every finding is traced to your own text.
How is RigorMD different from pasting my manuscript into a chatbot?
A general-purpose chatbot reads your paper once and tends to agree with it — and the assistant that helped write or analyze a paper is grading its own homework. RigorMD is an independent adjudication system with no hand in your manuscript: two engines appraise the paper blind across multiple passes. Findings generally need recurrence. Protected deterministic discrepancies are reported directly, and serious or critical cross-check-only findings must survive adversarial verification. It recomputes your statistics from the reported numbers instead of trusting them, resolves the DOIs and PMIDs you cite against Crossref and PubMed — listing any it could not reach as not checked, rather than passing it — and traces each finding to your own text.
Does RigorMD actually check my statistics?
Yes, and it goes further than arithmetic. A deterministic layer recomputes p-values, denominators, percentages, effect estimates against their confidence intervals, and related values from the manuscript's reported numbers, flagging any that do not reconcile — the recomputed number is shown in the finding. It also checks the study's reasoning the same way: it recomputes the interaction test behind a subgroup claim, whether a non-inferiority conclusion clears the paper's own margin, whether a "no difference" interval still reaches the important difference the authors themselves named, events per variable, the fragility index against loss to follow-up, the participant-flow arithmetic, I² from the reported Q, and the sample size the stated design requires.
Will it invent references the way a chatbot can?
No. Cited DOIs and PMIDs are resolved against Crossref, doi.org, and NCBI PubMed; identifiers that do not resolve, or that resolve to a different article than the one cited, are flagged in the report.
Is the report written for a clinician or a statistician?
Both. Every finding is written twice — a plain-language clinician line, with a statistician panel underneath that names the bias mechanism and its RoB 2 / GRADE domain — so the physician and the statistician can each act on it.
Does RigorMD read my paper in the context of the medical literature?
Yes. A dedicated literature layer retrieves related prior work from PubMed and weighs your framing and novelty claims against what it actually found — overstated firsts and unacknowledged prior studies are flagged, with the retrieved records cited in the report. Your manuscript is read in context, not in isolation.
Send a stronger manuscript the first time.
Upload your package and we'll email you when the severity-scored report is ready. Delivery time varies with package complexity and service availability. Submit knowing you've already answered the questions a tough reviewer will ask.