Models
A mixture of models, cross-checked.
Every frontier model (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Mistral, Grok) alongside our own, routed per sub-task and made to check each other. No single-model bias.
Explore Science vs PeerGenius
PeerGenius runs seven specialist AI reviewers over your manuscript in 5 to 15 minutes and returns a decision letter. Explore Science is the AI co-scientist: up to two hours of cross-checked analysis, a Calibre score across eight categories, verified references, and a chat that has read your work.
The short answer
Choose Explore Science, the AI co-scientist, when the paper matters enough to spend up to two hours on: a Calibre score across eight categories, every reference verified against live records, and each revision scored so you can see what moved. Choose PeerGenius for a fast, cheap statistics and methodology read on a single manuscript, paying only when you submit. Both are pre-submission checks meant to complement human peer review, and both run frontier models from several providers. The split is what you get back: PeerGenius returns seven reviewer verdicts in about fifteen minutes, Explore Science returns a scored record of a paper you keep improving.
Compared July 2026 · from PeerGenius's own published materials
Choose Explore Science when
- Runs up to two hours of analysis, with models and scientific agents challenging each other's findings before anything is scored, against PeerGenius's 5 to 15 minutes.
- Verifies every reference against live scholarly databases and checks that each citation supports the claim made of it, catching fabricated or mismatched DOIs; PeerGenius parses your reference list and flags outdated or missing citations editorially, with no live-database verification described.
- Returns one Calibre score out of 100 across eight fixed categories, so a paper can be measured against itself over time; PeerGenius scores each reviewer's read separately, with no single rubric score for the manuscript.
- Scores every revision and shows which categories moved between drafts, in a shared workspace your co-authors can join.
- Reviews protocols and proposals as well as manuscripts, which PeerGenius states it is not suitable for, and adds Rosa, a chat grounded in your paper, its review, and your wider body of work.
Choose PeerGenius when
- Faster: 5 to 15 minutes regardless of manuscript length, against our up to two hours.
- Cheaper at the low end: $1.33 for a single reviewer, $8.26 for four, $12.18 for seven plus an editor, with no subscription and regional discounts of up to 40%.
- Its statistical reviewer returns corrective R, Python, or Stata code for underpowered samples and wrong tests, not just prose feedback.
- Reporting-guideline checks against named clinical checklists including CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, and ARRIVE.
- Publishes its validation: five BMJ manuscripts re-reviewed against the journal's own open peer reviews, scoring 8.86 against the human reviewers' 7.86, with the full review PDFs and methodology online.
Side by side
| Capability |  | PeerGenius |
|---|---|---|
| What it reviews | Manuscripts, plus protocol/proposal, editorial, and novelty reviews | Journal articles, dissertations, theses, conference papers, and preprints; states it is not suitable for grant proposals |
| Turnaround | Up to two hours of cross-checking before a score is issued; emailed when ready | 5 to 15 minutes, regardless of length; reviewers run in parallel |
| Review engine | Claude, GPT, Gemini, Mistral, and Grok alongside our in-house Explorer One, each checking the others' findings | Four frontier models (Claude Opus 4.5, Claude Sonnet 4.5, GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro) mapped across seven specialist reviewers |
| Quality score | Calibre: one score out of 100 across eight fixed categories | Each reviewer scores 0 to 100 with a confidence level; Premier adds an editor's decision letter and publication-readiness verdict |
| Reference checking | Every reference verified against live databases and against the claim it supports | References parsed at upload; citation gaps flagged editorially, with no live-database verification described |
| Statistical code | Flags statistical issues in prose; no code | Returns corrective R, Python, or Stata code |
| Revisions | Each version scored; changes shown category by category, draft to draft | Not described in its published materials |
| Paper-grounded chat | Rosa, which has read the paper, its review, and your published record | Not described in its published materials |
| Pricing | Free to start; $49 for one full-depth review with no subscription, or monthly plans from $99 with an allowance | Pay per review, no subscription: $1.33 a reviewer, $8.26 for four, $12.18 for seven plus an editor, scaled by length |
90% rate a review on par with or better than the human peer review they have had.
Two in three rate it better. From 304 head-to-head ratings by researchers who had received peer review on the same paper. These are our own users, self-reported, which is worth knowing when you weigh them.
Depth
Why a thorough review takes the time it takes.
Most tools optimize for speed. Explore Science runs the engine we built to conduct original research autonomously, and points it at your manuscript: it reads recent literature in your field, checks every reference, and works through the paper the way a careful reviewer does.
The time is the method, not an overhead on it.
How a paper is scoredTime spent thinking about your paper
How long a review actually takes
Single-pass LLM
~2 min
Other AI reviewers
5 to 20 min
Human peer review
(active reading time)
~30 min
Explore Science
up to 2 hrs
Industry observation; self-reported vendor figures; Publons peer-review time survey, 2018.
The engine
What actually reads your paper.
Three pieces of the architecture do the work behind every review.
Agents
Scientific agents that reason like the field.
Dozens of specialised agents work each review in parallel, each tuned to one dimension of analysis, spawning more when a section needs them.
Infrastructure
An in-house science stack.
Memory that holds your paper in context for the whole review, live verification of every citation, and novelty assessment. Built over years of autonomous science.
Seven reviewers in fifteen minutes
PeerGenius runs seven specialist reviewers in parallel (Domain Expert, Adversarial Skeptic, Statistical Methods, Results Accuracy, Systematic Reviewer, Pragmatic Reviewer, and Scientific and Technical Writer), with an Editor-in-Chief on its Premier tier consolidating them into a decision letter that separates major from minor revisions. Each reviewer returns its own score out of 100 and a confidence level. It is built by a mathematical statistician, it complements human peer review, and it does not rewrite text for you. Explore Science holds the same boundary.
Explore Science makes a different bet on time. A review takes up to two hours because the frontier models and our scientific agents are made to check each other's findings before anything is scored, and because Explorer One, our own reviewer, runs alongside them instead of in place of them.
The two scores are not the same object
Both tools score, and the numbers answer different questions. PeerGenius gives seven independent reads, each with its own score, which tells you how each specialist judged the paper. Calibre gives one score out of 100 built from eight fixed categories, which tells you where this draft sits and, after you revise, which categories moved.
The wider gap is the bibliography. Explore Science verifies every reference against live scholarly databases and checks that each citation supports the claim attached to it, catching fabricated or mismatched DOIs before a reviewer does. PeerGenius parses your reference list at upload and its Domain Expert flags outdated or missing citations, but no live-database verification appears in its published materials.
Common questions
What does PeerGenius cost?
PeerGenius is pay per review with no subscription, priced by manuscript length: $1.33 for a single specialist, $8.26 for four, $12.18 for all seven plus an Editor-in-Chief, with regional discounts of up to 40%, a first-order coupon, and the option to upgrade a Standard review to Premier for the price difference. Its free tools include a Reviewer 2 Generator with a desk-rejection risk score, and two full manuscript assessments a month. Explore Science is free to start, $49 for a single full-depth review with no subscription, or monthly plans from $99 with an allowance for reviews and chat.
If I review the same manuscript twice, what do I get?
Explore Science scores both versions and shows which of the eight categories moved, in one workspace your co-authors can open. PeerGenius describes no comparison between versions, so a second submission is reviewed on its own; it does let you upgrade a purchased Standard review to the full Premier panel for the price difference.
Do PeerGenius or Explore Science train AI on my manuscript?
Neither. PeerGenius states it does not train on manuscripts, deletes them 30 days after upload, and names Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google as API providers barred from training on the data. Explore Science does not train models on your manuscript and lets you permanently delete any paper from your workspace.
Can either tool review a grant proposal?
Explore Science runs protocol and proposal reviews alongside manuscripts, and surfaces funding opportunities against your record. PeerGenius states it is not suitable for grant proposals or funding applications, so a fellowship or grant draft sits outside its scope.
Claims about PeerGenius reflect its own published materials; everything about Explore Science reflects what the platform does today. Sources: PeerGenius pricing, PeerGenius FAQ, PeerGenius documentation, PeerGenius validation methodology. Something out of date? and we will fix it.
Already using PeerGenius? Put the same paper through a scored review.
Get started free