A verified expert in your field reads your manuscript and tells you what a reviewer is likely to raise, while you can still fix it. Nothing is sent to any journal.
Four steps, and you see the reviewers before you pay.
Title, abstract, your field, and the language you want the review written in.
Matching experts, with their record and turnaround. Before you pay anything.
Up to three are invited; the first to accept takes the work.
Specific, quoted, each marked by severity. You decide what to change.
Priced per manuscript, shown before you commit.
| Tier | Turnaround | Price | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-submission review | 14 days | $300 | A full expert read before you submit |
| Priority | 7 days | $400 | A deadline you cannot move |
| Methods & statistics | 21 days | $550 | Study design, analysis, and whether the claims follow |
This is not stacked on top of an article processing charge. Most authors never pay one: subscription journals charge the author nothing, and where an open-access charge applies it is billed on acceptance, later and separately. The comparison that matters is against a desk rejection or a six-month revision round trip.
Most are not rejected for being wrong. They are rejected for three things an expert reader can see in an afternoon.
No. Journal peer review is part of an editorial decision. This is a second opinion you commission for yourself before you submit. CitePep sends nothing to any journal.
You are told before you pay. The match runs on your field and language, so an empty result is visible up front rather than after a charge.
Yes. You choose the language the review is written in, and only reviewers who work in that language are matched. It is a filter, not a preference.
Only if you tell them. Nothing is disclosed by CitePep.
The reviewer who accepts it, and nobody else. The content of the review is private to you unless you choose to publish the record.
See which experts can review your manuscript, in your field and your language, before you commit to anything.