RigorMD is adding a Critical Review workflow for manuscripts that are already in editorial review or already published. Choose the role you are working from and name the journal; mode-specific report generation is in controlled rollout, separate from the current standard manuscript-validation checkout.
The same PDF can raise different questions depending on whether you are handling a submission, drafting a peer-review critique, or reading a published paper for clinical use. Critical Review keeps those outputs separate and will open as a distinct report workflow rather than a hidden variant of the standard review.
The full workflow will use this for journal-fit and evidentiary-standard appraisal. Analytics receives only the selected mode.
Every mode uses the same manuscript-methods spine, then changes the output for the role.
| Checklist area | What Critical Review looks for |
|---|---|
| Study design clarity | Fit between the manuscript text, reported methods, available results, and the claim being made. When the PDF lacks the needed detail, the report should say not assessable rather than guessing. |
| Population and eligibility | Fit between the manuscript text, reported methods, available results, and the claim being made. When the PDF lacks the needed detail, the report should say not assessable rather than guessing. |
| Exposure/intervention definition | Fit between the manuscript text, reported methods, available results, and the claim being made. When the PDF lacks the needed detail, the report should say not assessable rather than guessing. |
| Outcome definition | Fit between the manuscript text, reported methods, available results, and the claim being made. When the PDF lacks the needed detail, the report should say not assessable rather than guessing. |
| Comparator/control definition | Fit between the manuscript text, reported methods, available results, and the claim being made. When the PDF lacks the needed detail, the report should say not assessable rather than guessing. |
| Confounding control | Fit between the manuscript text, reported methods, available results, and the claim being made. When the PDF lacks the needed detail, the report should say not assessable rather than guessing. |
| Missing data | Fit between the manuscript text, reported methods, available results, and the claim being made. When the PDF lacks the needed detail, the report should say not assessable rather than guessing. |
| Model specification | Fit between the manuscript text, reported methods, available results, and the claim being made. When the PDF lacks the needed detail, the report should say not assessable rather than guessing. |
| Clustering/hierarchical structure | Fit between the manuscript text, reported methods, available results, and the claim being made. When the PDF lacks the needed detail, the report should say not assessable rather than guessing. |
| Multiplicity | Fit between the manuscript text, reported methods, available results, and the claim being made. When the PDF lacks the needed detail, the report should say not assessable rather than guessing. |
| Power/sample size | Fit between the manuscript text, reported methods, available results, and the claim being made. When the PDF lacks the needed detail, the report should say not assessable rather than guessing. |
| Effect estimates and precision | Fit between the manuscript text, reported methods, available results, and the claim being made. When the PDF lacks the needed detail, the report should say not assessable rather than guessing. |
| Tables/figures consistency | Fit between the manuscript text, reported methods, available results, and the claim being made. When the PDF lacks the needed detail, the report should say not assessable rather than guessing. |
| Abstract accuracy | Fit between the manuscript text, reported methods, available results, and the claim being made. When the PDF lacks the needed detail, the report should say not assessable rather than guessing. |
| Discussion overclaiming | Fit between the manuscript text, reported methods, available results, and the claim being made. When the PDF lacks the needed detail, the report should say not assessable rather than guessing. |
| Ethics/IRB/data source transparency | Fit between the manuscript text, reported methods, available results, and the claim being made. When the PDF lacks the needed detail, the report should say not assessable rather than guessing. |
| References and literature positioning | Fit between the manuscript text, reported methods, available results, and the claim being made. When the PDF lacks the needed detail, the report should say not assessable rather than guessing. |