Up to 70% of manuscripts fail desk review. Check yours before you submit.
Upload your paper and get an instant Readiness Score — AI checks structure, clarity, references, and journal fit. Know exactly what to fix before rejection costs you months.
DOC, DOCX or PDF · max 20MB
Your manuscript is used only to generate this report, is not used to train public AI models
Results to your inbox in 5–10 min · English manuscripts only
From upload to clarity in 4 steps
No account needed. Pay once, get your Readiness Score and a detailed PDF report delivered straight to your inbox.
See exactly what you get at each level
Start free — upgrade only if you need more. No subscription, no account required.
Know exactly what's holding your score back
A lower score isn't a rejection — it's a checklist. Here's a real example: the overall score, every criterion we check, and fixes tied to your target journal's actual guidelines.
Mobile Money Adoption and Financial Inclusion in Rural Kenya
Readiness
iThenticate
similarity check
AI Detection
Your manuscript needs meaningful revision before it's ready for this journal.
Target journal
Journal of Development Economics and Policy
10
Criteria
48%
Readiness
Journal Check
Package
15 Aug
Generated
10 criteria checked
What we actually evaluate
General criteria (1–7)
Journal-specific (8–10)
Fix these 3 first
Specific to Journal of Development Economics and Policy
Methodology Missing
JDEP's author guidelines require a dedicated Methods section detailing sampling frame, instrument, and data source. Yours folds this into the introduction — split it into its own section before Results.
Limitations Missing
JDEP's review checklist explicitly asks reviewers to check for a Limitations section. Add one discussing data constraints and how far your findings generalise beyond the three counties surveyed.
Citation style Needs work
JDEP uses APA 7th edition with DOIs on every journal reference. Your list mixes numbered and author-date styles — reformat all 42 entries, or risk a desk-reject on formatting alone.
References Needs work
JDEP's submission FAQ flags missing DOIs as the top reason for first-round reviewer pushback. 15 of your 42 references are missing DOIs — add them before you submit.
Most rejections are preventable.
Most authors don't know that.
Desk rejection doesn't mean your research is bad. It means something predictable stopped the editor from sending it to reviewers.
Real results from real researchers
I submit to several journals a year, and most of my time was never spent writing, it went into uncertainty: was the manuscript actually ready, or was I just guessing? Twice I was rejected at the desk-review stage without even getting a chance at peer review, and I never found out exactly why. On top of that, I had no way to run my manuscript through Turnitin or an AI-detection check, I simply didn't know where to get one.
Before my last submission I chose the Journal Check package in Article Readiness, specifically because it included both plagiarism and AI checks. My readiness score came back at 55%, plagiarism at 17%, and AI-detection at 10%. The report flagged three specific priorities: methodology, research questions, and abstract structure. These weren't generic tips like 'improve your structure', each point showed exactly what and where to fix.
I spent 7 days on focused revisions instead of weeks of guessing, submitted the paper, and this time passed desk review with zero comments from the editor. The difference was immediate. 📈
As Head of Department, I review my colleagues' and students' papers myself, so I know exactly what a manuscript that 'looks ready' but isn't actually looks like. The problem is that when you're checking your own paper, it's easy to miss what you'd instantly catch in someone else's.
Article Readiness gave me a score of 70% and flagged that I hadn't included enough sources from the last 5 years, a requirement the journal specifically asked for, something I'd missed despite rereading the manuscript several times. I also appreciated the similarity check: 3% similarity with a clear list of sources, not just a number with no explanation. It's genuinely convenient having readiness, plagiarism, and AI reports all in one place.
I've used it on 4 papers in the past month alone, for a department head, that's real time saved that would otherwise go into manually checking every single paper. 👏
The biggest problem with feedback from colleagues or a supervisor is that it's always subjective and different every time. One person says 'looks fine', another finds completely different issues. I needed a clear, consistent standard before even thinking about submission.
I was submitting to a serious publisher, and before this I'd been rejected at desk review three times across different journals from that same publisher. Article Readiness gave me a 40% score with an explanation for each of the 7 criteria individually, where it was Good, Needs work, or Missing, and what each rating actually meant. The most useful part was the Priority Fixes section: instead of a list of 10 remarks, it showed me the 5 points to start with first.
I fixed exactly those 5 points in 2 weeks, and the paper successfully passed desk review. ✅