A review panel that reads your draft before Reviewer 2 does.
Three reviewers with different jobs: one interrogates your methods, one your clarity, one plays the skeptic. Each reads the draft and returns a structured, provenance-stamped report, so the verdict is no black box.
Start free
What a reader can check
Open the report and three things are there to check, not take on faith: which draft it ran against and when, so the verdict cannot quietly drift from what is on the page now; the methods critique, the clarity critique and the skeptic’s read, each attributed to its own pass rather than blended into one score; and the provenance stamp itself, tying the report to a specific version the way a human reviewer’s comments tie to a specific manuscript. The report lives at a public link, so a supervisor or an editor can read the same record rather than take your word for it. Nothing about it asks to be trusted on its author’s say alone.
Questions, answered
Is this a replacement for peer review?
No — it’s the pass before peer review. It catches the methods gaps, unclear arguments and overclaims a referee would flag, so your submission is stronger when a human reviewer sees it.
Why three reviewers instead of one?
Because “give me feedback” produces mush. Splitting the job — methods, clarity, skepticism — gives each reviewer a clear remit, so the critique is specific and actionable instead of generic.
What is the Reviewer Report?
A structured, provenance-stamped record of the review at a public link — so the review is transparent and verifiable, not an anonymous black-box judgment.
Which plan includes Reviewer?
Folio Reviewer is part of the Fellow and Chair plans.
Find the holes before they do.
Run the panel on your draft and fix what a reviewer would catch. Start free.
Free to start · No credit card · Export everything · No ads