Publication readiness check
An explained checklist of the submission factors you actually control — tuned to the kind of article you are writing. Free, no sign-up, nothing stored.
Thirteen factors, all of them yours to change.
Title and abstract
Length against the ranges usual for your article type, whether the abstract moves through background, method, result, and conclusion, and whether it actually states a finding rather than promising one.
Keywords
How many you have, and how much they duplicate words already in your title. Keywords that repeat the title waste the indexing they exist for.
References
How many, how recent, and how many carry a DOI. The counts are read from the list you paste — no lookups, no network, nothing sent anywhere.
Declarations
Funding, conflicts of interest, ethics approval, data and code availability, ORCID. Which ones apply depends on what you are writing, and the check knows the difference.
Twelve references is thorough, or thin. It depends.
Twelve references is entirely normal for a short communication and noticeably light for a review, where fifty or more is usual. A 150-word abstract is right for a letter and short for a research article. An ethics statement is expected in a case report and not usually required in a review.
A single set of ranges would therefore be wrong for most people using it. So the check carries eight profiles — research article, review, short communication, case report, methods or protocol paper, letter, thesis chapter, and unspecified — and each one sets its own ranges and switches off the declarations that do not apply to it.
If you do not tell it, it does not guess. Unspecified widens every range and reports rather than judges: “12 references. Tell us the article type and we will say whether that is typical.”
It is a checklist, not a prediction.
The figure it reports counts what you have addressed out of what it could assess. It is not a forecast of acceptance, not a quality rating, and not an assessment of your research. We considered building a score out of novelty and validity and rejected it: those are exactly the things an automated read cannot judge, and a number like “62/100” implies a precision that does not exist.
Your target journal's author guidelines are the authority. The ranges here are the common ones across journals. Where the two disagree, the guidelines win — every time.
Not supplying something is not held against you. Anything you leave blank is counted separately as “could not check” rather than scored as a failure.
Nothing is stored, and nothing is sent anywhere. Every check is text analysis running on our own server. There are no lookups, no model, and no third party involved — which is also why it is instant and gives the same answer twice.
Check your references while you are here.
Paste your bibliography and every DOI is checked against CrossRef, or build a formatted citation from a DOI.
You do not have to paste anything twice.
Every completed scan runs this same checklist over your manuscript automatically, alongside the language, citation, structure, and consistency checks — and returns your own file with the corrections tracked.