One consistent methodological and statistical review for trainees, faculty, and clinical research groups — before a journal sees the manuscript. Authors keep their results private; the institution sees adoption, not severity. Review without surveillance. Designed by an academic surgeon and journal editor — a statistics expert with 100+ peer-reviewed publications.
| Data | Author | Institution admin | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Manuscript & files | ✓ | — |
| 02 | Report & severity | ✓ | — |
| 03 | Title, department, status, dates | ✓ | ✓ |
| 04 | Usage & volume | ✓ own | ✓ aggregate |
The flaws that sink a submission are usually avoidable — and they cost the author months and the institution its name. A standardized pre-submission read makes the floor the same across every group.
Most desk rejections and Reviewer-2 findings are methodological or statistical — the kind a structured pre-submission read catches while the manuscript can still be fixed.
How rigorously a draft is checked before it leaves your group depends on the trainee, the mentor, and the week. A standardized pass makes the floor the same for everyone.
Statistical expertise is scarce and gated. A structured methods-and-statistics read on demand relieves the queue without replacing your statisticians.
Every submission carries the institution's name. Catching a fatal flaw before a journal does protects the author and the program at once.
Members across your domain upload a manuscript package before they submit to a journal — the same intake every author uses, under your institution.
Two independent engines plus a deterministic statistical layer return a severity-scored, quote-grounded report to that author — private to them.
Admins get an activity view — who is using it, across which departments, at what volume — never the contents or the severity of any report.
Same engine every author already uses — see how the report is produced.
An author's report is theirs. Chairs, program directors, and administrators never see its contents or its severity scores — only activity and usage metadata: titles, departments, status, dates, and volume, as shown above. A per-org policy can restrict even that.
This is access control, not a promise. Tenant isolation is enforced with row-level security in the database itself, under non-privileged roles — not just in application code — and every administrative read of metadata is audited.
The result is the thing that makes a department-wide tool actually get used: an author can run a candid pre-submission check without it becoming a performance review. Read how confidentiality is enforced →
Set up a department, residency program, or journal: members across your email domain, with admin roles scoped to the right people.
Adoption and usage by department and over time — volume, active members, status. Metadata only, by design (see Privacy).
Usage-based pricing scoped to your volume in the pilot conversation, with academic and volume terms. A direct line to the team throughout.
Pricing is usage-based and scoped to your volume during the pilot conversation — academic and volume terms available. SSO and the admin dashboard arrive with institutional rollout.
No. RigorMD flags methodological and statistical problems; it never certifies a manuscript and is not a journal decision. It is decision support before review — never an automated decision.
Manuscripts must be de-identified, exactly as journals require. Every upload is screened for patient identifiers and you attest at submission; the attestation is recorded. See Security & confidentiality for what the screen does and does not do.
Only the author, and anyone they explicitly share it with. Chairs and admins never see report contents or severity — activity and usage metadata only, under a per-org policy. Isolation is enforced in the database, not just the app.
Institutional licensing is usage-based and negotiated during pilot scoping — there is no fixed list price. Academic and volume terms are available. Individual reports remain available per-report for any author.
Tell us about your department, program, or journal and we'll scope a pilot — usage-based, with academic terms.