Only accepted work is recordedAboutGuidesContactSign in
CitePepCitePep
How it works

How CitePep works

Follow one correction, from a wrong number to the public record.

An example case, step by step. Click through the stages: the page on the right changes exactly as it would on CitePep.

Who's involved in this case
MSContributor BOceanographer · proposes the correction
EDThe editor at Ocean DataOwns the page · accepts or declines
REvery reader afterSees who fixed it, and when
5 steps · about a minute to follow
publisher.example/overthinking-and-ruminationPublic page
Ocean Data · Explainer
How fast is the sea rising?

Baseline is measured by tide gauges and, since 1993, by satellite altimetry. The two records agree closely over the overlap period.

Over recent decades, global mean baseline has been rising at the published rate per year, and the rate is accelerating.

?Contributor B, oceanographer, notices the figure.the published rate/yr is the 1993–2010 average. The current IPCC assessment gives the current rate/yr for 2006–2018.
Another way in

Unsure? Start with a question

Start with a hunch. Ask in the community first; experts in the topic help you check, and an agreed answer becomes a correction in one step. The case above started exactly this way.

Open the community
Step 1
Ask about the claimQuote the sentence, link the page, say what you checked. Experts in the topic are notified.
c/explainersOpen problemIs the published rate still the right rate?38 helpful · 14 replies
Step 2
Experts check it with youReplies with sources are shown first. When experts agree, the thread is marked resolved.
Contributor AExpert answer“3.2 is the 1993–2010 average. AR6 gives the current rate for 2006–2018.”Source: IPCC AR6 WG1, ch. 9
Step 3
Turn it into a correctionOne click fills the correction with the quote, the fix and the source. From here it follows the steps above.
Correction from threadthe published rate per year → the current rate per yearAccepted 9 Aug · linked to the thread

Pages change when the publisher decides, exactly as in the walkthrough above. How the community works →

The second service

One manuscript, eight days, one reader who knows the field.

Pre-submission review uses the same verified experts. The findings go privately to the author.

Day 0
Reviewer describes the paper

Field: marine ecology. Language: English. She sees 6 matching reviewers (none from her institution) before paying.

Day 1
Three reviewers are invited

Matched on field, language and capacity. Each sees the abstract and the fee set in their own profile.

Day 2
Reviewer accepts

The first to accept takes it; the other invitations lapse. Her fee of $420 is frozen at this moment.

Day 8
Findings delivered

Seven findings, each quoted and graded by severity. Only the author can read them.

Finding 3 of 7Visible to: Reviewer only
MAJORMethods · §3.2
"Thermal stress onset at +1°C above the local maximum monthly mean."

The threshold is stated without the degree-heating-week context that the cited source uses. A journal referee is likely to ask for it; adding DHW values for each site would address this.

What becomes public afterwards
Reviewer · reviews completed32 +1
On-time rate97%
Private: the manuscript, the author, the findings and the verdict.
Side by side

The two services at a glance

Both use the same verified experts. They differ in who decides, who pays, and what anyone else can see.

Web pagesCorrections and reviews: public
ManuscriptsPre-submission review: private
Who starts itA contributor, or a publisher posting a requestThe author of the paper
Who decidesThe publisher of the pageThe author, who gets advice and decide what to change
Who paysThe publisher, per reviewed page (from $49). Contributors join freeThe author pays the reviewer’s fee, after a reviewer accepts
What becomes publicWho contributed, their role, the date and the exact changeOnly that the reviewer completed a review, and whether on time
What stays privateDeclined workEverything: the paper, the author, the findings
Typical timeEditors decide in about 2 daysAbout 8 days from description to findings

What if…

What if the editor declines my correction?It stays private to you and the publisher. You see the editor’s reason, so you can improve or resubmit.
What if the editor is slow to answer?You get a reminder after 14 days, and the publisher’s profile shows its average decision time, so slow publishers are visible.
How are contributors verified?Before any work can count: an ORCID record, an institutional email, or an identity check. The profile shows which checks were passed.
What if reviewers are busy?If 10 days pass without an acceptance, your payment is released back to you in full. You can widen the match or try again.
Can I question the review?Yes: one round of clarifying questions after delivery. You can also disagree with any finding; every change is your choice.
Does a review help me get published?It improves your odds by showing what a journal reviewer is likely to raise. Acceptance is the journal’s call, and the review stays private unless you attach it.

In both cases, everything on the record is checked and approved, and reputation is earned through work.

Read the standards →
Correct a pageCreate a free contributor profile and start with an open question in your field.Create an account →Get a paper reviewedDescribe your manuscript and see matching reviewers and their fees before you pay.Describe your paper →