One validation standard for every paper that carries your name.
RigorMD helps the author and protects the program's reputation: one consistent methodological and statistical validation standard for trainees, faculty, and clinical research groups before a journal sees the manuscript. Authors keep their reports private; the institution sees adoption and status metadata, not findings or severity. Review without surveillance. Built by a practicing academic surgeon and surgical journal editor with 61 peer-reviewed publications and 100+ editorial manuscript reviews.
- Focus your reviewers — the scarcest resource an editorial office has.
- Protect the integrity of the journal — one consistent methodological read before a manuscript reaches the people whose names are on the masthead.
- Bridge the two competences — your statistician sees the clinical context, and your clinical reviewers see the methods, because every finding is written in both registers.
- Show the editor what a manuscript needs before review is assigned — whether it can use the review it is about to get, or needs work first. The report informs that call; it never makes it.
Looking for journal or publisher screening? See Editorial Review →
| Data | Author | Institution admin | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Manuscript & files | ✓ | — |
| 02 | Report & severity | ✓ | — |
| 03 | Submission status & dates | ✓ | ✓ |
| 04 | Usage & volume | ✓ own | ✓ aggregate, by policy |
Rigor shouldn't depend on who reviewed the draft.
The flaws that sink a submission are usually avoidable — and they cost the author months and the program credibility. A standardized pre-submission validation layer creates a common quality floor 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 should not depend on the trainee, mentor, service line, or week. A standardized read 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 program's reputation. A shared validation checkpoint protects authors, mentors, and the department before the journal sees the work.
Authors submit pre-journal
Members across your domain upload a manuscript package before they submit to a journal — the same intake every author uses, under your institution.
Each author gets a report
Two independent engines plus a deterministic statistical layer return a severity-scored, quote-grounded report to that author — private to them.
The department sees adoption
Admins get an activity view — how many members are using it, how many manuscripts, and where each one stands — never who wrote what, the contents, or the severity of any report.
Same engine every author already uses, packaged as institutional validation infrastructure — see how the report is produced.
Review without surveillance. That is why faculty adopt it.
An author's report is theirs. Chairs, program directors, and administrators never see its contents or its severity scores — and never see manuscript titles or author identity. Their activity view is limited to status, dates, volume, and aggregate usage, as shown above. Aggregate token and cost usage is off unless your institution asks us to turn it on.
Report and file access is enforced with row-level security under non-privileged database roles. The separate institution activity query is identity- and severity-free, and every administrative read 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, fellowship, hospital group, or research office: members across your email domain, with admin roles scoped to the right people.
Adoption and usage 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.
Pilot credits are issued to named institutions, departments, programs, or research offices. Public coupon codes are not used for institutional plans.
Published starting points. Scoped for the workflow you run.
Individual authors can still buy a single report from the public pricing page. Institutional plans are monthly access plans with included volume and overage, so departments, programs, and research offices can budget the workflow rather than approve one-off purchases.
Journals, societies, and publishers should use Editorial Review for journal-facing screening and portfolio workflows.
- 10/month included
- $25/use overage
- 1 institution workspace
- Author-private reports
- Activity and volume metadata
- Pilot onboarding
- 50/month included
- $20/use overage
- 50 included reviews
- Workspace activity summary
- Shared admin roles
- Academic support
- 100/month included
- $18/use overage
- 100 included reviews
- Several groups, one standard
- Priority onboarding
- Custom usage review
| Enterprise path | Price | Volume | When it fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Academic Enterprise | Custom annual | 250+/month | University, health-system, or research-office rollout with security and procurement support. |
| Research Office Enterprise | Custom annual | 500+/month | Medical-school, hospital, or multi-department rollout with SSO, security review, and administration planning. |
No checkout is exposed for institutional plans yet. Institutional pricing is sales-led until the matching organization, pilot-credit, security, and fulfillment paths are in production.
Is this peer review?
No. RigorMD flags methodological and statistical problems and is not a journal decision. It is decision support before review — never an automated decision.
What about PHI?
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.
Who sees an author's report?
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.
What does it cost?
Department plans start at $250/month. Core plans start at $900/month for 50 included reviews. Larger medical-school, hospital, or research-office plans are scoped by volume, administration, and security needs.
Tell us the shape of your program. We'll scope the pilot.
Five fields, and the department is optional — a research office or hospital group has none. We follow up by email to scope volume, academic terms, and onboarding.
Prefer email? Write to support@abigailmd.com and tell us about your department, program, hospital, or research office.
Bring a consistent standard to every submission.
Tell us about your department, program, hospital, or research office and we'll scope a pilot — usage-based, with academic terms.