AI Peer Review for Psychology Manuscripts
Post-replication-crisis, psychology reviewers scrutinize power, preregistration, and analytic flexibility. Find those weaknesses before they do.
Psychology reviewers read with the replication crisis in mind. They notice underpowered designs, flexible analytic choices that were never preregistered, conclusions reframed after the data came in, and effect sizes left unreported behind a bare p-value.
ManuscriptMind checks your psychology manuscript for exactly these concerns: adequate power, transparent analytic decisions, sound measurement, and claims that generalize no further than your sample allows.
What reviewers flag in Psychology papers
Underpowered designs
Small samples that cannot reliably detect the effects being claimed, with no a priori power analysis. The single most common reviewer objection in the field.
Researcher degrees of freedom
Undisclosed flexibility in excluding participants, choosing covariates, or selecting outcomes. Reviewers now expect this flexibility to be acknowledged or removed through preregistration.
HARKing
Presenting an exploratory finding as if it were the original hypothesis. Reviewers look for whether hypotheses were genuinely specified in advance.
Weak measurement validity
Using scales without reporting reliability or construct validity, or treating a novel measure as if it were established.
Overgeneralizing from narrow samples
Drawing broad conclusions about human behavior from a convenience sample of undergraduates or a single cultural context.
Statistical pitfalls specific to Psychology
- Reporting p-values without effect sizes and confidence intervals
- Uncorrected multiple comparisons across many outcomes or conditions
- Mediation and moderation analyses framed as causal from cross-sectional data
- Reliance on a p < .05 threshold without addressing analytic flexibility
Reporting guidelines we check against
What ManuscriptMind checks in your Psychology manuscript
- Whether the design is adequately powered for the claimed effect
- Transparency of analytic decisions and whether they were preregistered
- Alignment between stated hypotheses and the analyses reported
- Reliability and validity evidence for your measures
- Whether conclusions generalize beyond the sample studied
Review your Psychology manuscript before you submit
Upload your paper and get structured, severity-classified feedback in minutes. Methodology, statistics, and literature issues flagged with specific fixes. Free during beta.
Frequently asked questions
Does it understand the replication crisis concerns?
Yes. ManuscriptMind is built around the issues that reshaped psychology: power, analytic flexibility, preregistration, and the gap between confirmatory and exploratory analysis.
Will it check my power analysis?
It evaluates whether an a priori power analysis is present and whether your sample size is plausible for the effect you claim. It flags underpowered designs rather than recomputing power for you.
Can it review qualitative psychology research?
Yes. For qualitative work it focuses on methodological transparency, analytic rigor, and whether interpretive claims are grounded in the data, rather than on statistical power.
Is it useful before I preregister?
It can review a draft analysis plan or pilot manuscript and surface the analytic decisions worth locking down before you preregister.