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 audit-trail 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.
Looking for journal or publisher triage? See Editorial Review →
| Data | Author | Institution admin | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Manuscript & files | ✓ | — |
| 02 | Report & severity | ✓ | — |
| 03 | Submission status & dates | ✓ | ✓ |
| 04 | Usage & volume | ✓ own | ✓ aggregate |
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.
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, packaged as institutional validation infrastructure — 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 — and never see manuscript titles or author identity. Their activity view is limited to status, dates, volume, and aggregate usage, as shown above. A per-org policy can restrict aggregate usage further.
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 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.
Pilot credits are issued to named institutions, departments, programs, or research offices. Public coupon codes are not used for institutional plans.
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 triage and portfolio workflows.
| 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, audit logs, 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.
No. RigorMD flags methodological and statistical problems 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.
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 about your department, program, hospital, or research office and we'll scope a pilot — usage-based, with academic terms.