Pre-Submission Manuscript Audit
Checks a manuscript for statistical power, blinding, reagent authentication and data availability before submission.
How it works
Checks a manuscript draft against common reproducibility failures before submission: whether sample sizes are justified, whether blinding and randomisation are described, whether reagents are identified precisely enough to be re-ordered, whether exact p-values and effect sizes are reported, and whether data and code availability are stated.
Frequently asked questions
What do reviewers most often flag in methods sections?
Unjustified sample sizes, missing detail on replication — particularly whether replicates were biological or technical — antibodies and cell lines identified only by name, statistical tests named without checking their assumptions, p-values given as thresholds rather than exact values, and no statement of data or code availability. Most are cheap to fix before submission and expensive to fix during review.
What is the difference between biological and technical replicates?
Biological replicates are independent samples — separate cultures, animals or preparations — that capture genuine biological variability. Technical replicates are repeated measurements of the same sample and capture only measurement error. Statistical tests treating technical replicates as independent observations inflate the apparent sample size and produce misleadingly small p-values; n should refer to biological replicates.