About RigorMD
Clinical research is written in two languages — medicine and statistics — and almost no author is fluent in both. RigorMD is the second reader that is: a severity-scored methods-and-statistics read of your manuscript, before you submit it.
§01 Who built it
Built by a practicing academic surgeon and surgical journal editor with 61 peer-reviewed publications and 100+ editorial manuscript reviews. The founder's background also includes large clinical-dataset analysis and statistical modeling for clinical research.
The product reflects that mix of clinical, editorial, research, and statistical-methods work, plus years spent on both sides of peer review. It is purpose-built on research-on-research literature, statistical standards, and the reporting guidelines journals actually enforce.
§02 Why it exists
Most clinical research carries serious methodological flaws. Peer review catches many of them; some still reach print. The expertise that would catch them earlier is scarce, gated, and unevenly distributed — and a flawed statistic becomes flawed care.
RigorMD advocates rigor, not statistical completeness: that readers can trust your findings, that your conclusions have a basis that holds, that a retraction never has to be written. Your name rides on that rigor — and so do the journal that publishes the work and the institution that stands behind you.
No clinician can be asked to be a perfect researcher while taking care of patients. RigorMD exists to close that gap — to make you more efficient, to make peer review work better, and to raise the integrity of all research and the institutions that support it. The toughest read your manuscript will ever get happens while it is still yours to fix.
§03 How it works
RigorMD is an adjudication system rather than a single AI opinion: two independent LLM engines appraise the manuscript blind, their findings are reconciled, and a deterministic layer recomputes statistics where the reported numbers allow — so a flag is a calculation you can check. Serious and critical cross-check-only findings are adversarially verified before they reach you, and every finding is grounded in your own text and severity-scored across seven domains — the seventh positions the manuscript against prior work retrieved from the medical literature. Every report is version-stamped. Scoring adapts GRADE and the RoB 2 / ROBINS-I risk-of-bias frameworks for pre-submission methodological review; the primary conclusion gets a plain claim–evidence calibration — the signed gap between the confidence the authors state and the support the reported results give it, which rewards a humble read and flags overreach.
§04 What it is not
A report is guidance based on the submitted materials — it is not a guarantee of journal acceptance, a substitute for peer review, or medical advice. Decisions about your manuscript, and about patient care, remain yours.
§05 See for yourself
Or review pricing — the pre-submission review is $99.