A rigorous journal-style review of your paper: strengths, weaknesses, the questions a reviewer would ask, and a verdict.
PDF or Word. We read the full text and review that, not a summary.
Peer review is a judgment against a fixed set of dimensions, not an opinion about whether the reader enjoyed your paper. A reviewer asks whether the contribution is worth making, whether the evidence actually carries the claims, and whether someone else could follow what you did. Having those questions put to your draft before you hand it in is the entire point of a practice review.
Contribution, originality, soundness of method, whether the evidence supports each claim, structure, and whether the limitations are acknowledged. A draft is usually strong on some of these and silent on others, which is why one overall impression gives you nothing to act on.
A criticism is only useful when it names the section or sentence it applies to and says what would fix it. 'The argument is underdeveloped' cannot be revised; 'this claim rests on a single source and the obvious counterexample is never addressed' can be.
Reviewers and markers tend to catch the same kinds of gaps: a jump with nothing under it, a confound left unmentioned, a term used two different ways in the same paper. Seeing those questions early means you answer them inside the paper rather than after the fact.
The review closes with a recommendation in journal language, from accept through minor and major revisions to reject, scaled to how serious the weaknesses are. It is one reading of your draft, not the decision your marker or editor will make, and it can misjudge a specialist argument in a field it knows only broadly.
Whether the contribution is worth making, whether the method is sound, whether each claim is supported, and whether the writing is clear enough to follow. Reviewers read hardest for the gap between what a paper claims and what it has actually shown, so that is the part worth checking yourself.
Ask someone who knows the field first, since only they can judge whether your contribution is new. A structured review is good for the problems a careful reader catches without domain expertise: overreaching claims, missing limitations, a structure that buries the argument, and inconsistent terminology.
No, and it should not be used as one. It cannot check your originality against the literature, cannot verify your data, and can be wrong about a specialist argument. Treat it as a first pass that clears the obvious problems before a human spends their time on your draft.
You can try it for free. A free account saves your work across devices and comes with higher daily limits, which matters when you want a second review after revising the draft.