How was the manuscript explored?
See which pages were displayed, how the reviewer moved through the paper and where they added notes.
FOR JOURNAL EDITORS
Protect peer review
in the age of AI.
Give editors evidence to assess suspected AI-generated reviews.
PeerWisely captures manuscript reading, notes, writing and paste activity, helping editors assess whether a review reflects genuine engagement with the paper.
In development · Seeking partners for our first journal pilot
REVIEW PROCESS
A review worth
a closer look.
- Manuscript displayed
- 27s
- Page-linked notes
- 0
- Pasted characters
- 4,860
Brief manuscript exposure.
A review-length paste.
Built around the manuscript
Prose + optional LaTeX
Evidence for editorial judgment
01 / THE WORKFLOW
Built for editors.
Designed around reviewers.
Read the manuscript, make notes, write the report. PeerWisely records the process as reviewers work.
01
Read the manuscript
Navigate the PDF, highlight passages and keep notes where they belong.
02
Write in your own workflow
Use ordinary prose or optional LaTeX. Save, pause and return to the review.
03
Give editors more context
See manuscript engagement and report composition together in a concise summary.
PEERWISELY
Outcomes and follow-up
Remote monitoring after heart-failure discharge: a multicentre randomised trial.
The primary endpoint was all-cause readmission within 90 days.
Comments on the trial
Please clarify how readmissions outside the study hospitals were identified and whether outcome ascertainment was consistent between groups.
A sensitivity analysis addressing missing follow-up would help readers assess the primary endpoint.
Review activity
- Manuscript displayed
- 27s
- Page-linked notes
- 0
- Paste operations
- 1
- Pasted characters
- 4,860
- Coverage interruption
- 12s
02 / EVIDENCE FOR EDITORS
See the work
behind the words.
When a review raises concerns about AI use, the finished report is only part of the picture.
PeerWisely brings the reading and writing process into view, giving editors evidence to inform their assessment and follow-up.
How did the report take shape?
Review writing, revisions and paste activity across sessions, alongside the manuscript engagement.
What needs a closer look?
Use the activity summary and the review itself to guide a focused follow-up with the reviewer.
03 / AN INVITATION TO JOURNALS
Shape the future of
human peer review.
We’re inviting journal editors to shape the first PeerWisely pilot.
Leave your email and I’ll be in touch to discuss a pilot for your journal.
Thanks for getting in touch.
I’ll be in contact soon.
— Dannin
Prefer email? dannin@peerwisely.com
A few important questions.
What can this evidence tell an editor?
It shows recorded reading and writing activity, including gaps in coverage. Editors interpret it alongside the review itself. PeerWisely does not assign an AI score or prove where a reviewer’s ideas came from. The examples shown here use fictional data.
Do reviewers need to use LaTeX?
No. Ordinary prose is the default. LaTeX is available for reviewers who prefer it or need mathematical notation.
Can a journal start using it today?
We’re developing the first journal pilot. Get in touch to discuss your reviewers’ workflow and what would make a pilot useful for your journal.