Intake
Screen submissions with a repeatable rubric
Triage incoming manuscripts against structured criteria so teams can quickly separate routine checks from cases that need expert time.
AI support for scientific review
Move manuscripts through review faster, with more consistency.
Peerclerk gives editorial teams a structured, AI-assisted pre-review layer — surfacing risk signals, organizing evidence, and handing off cleaner context so every expert spends their time where it actually matters.
- Faster intake triage
- Structured editor handoff
- Human-in-the-loop by design
The problem
Scientific peer review is under enormous strain.
Submission volumes grow every year. Qualified reviewers are harder to find. Editorial teams spend a disproportionate amount of time on administrative triage — time that should be spent on scientific judgment, not paperwork.
01
Submission volumes are growing faster than the reviewer pool can keep up with.
02
Critical issues — data gaps, methodological risks — surface too late in the process.
03
Handoffs between editors, reviewers, and teams are inconsistent and information-poor.
What it does
A structured review layer before the high-cost human work starts.
Peerclerk helps teams reduce backlog, improve consistency, and make early review decisions with clearer context — before deeper review begins.
Analysis
Surface evidence gaps and review signals
Pull attention toward claims, figures, and supporting context that deserve closer inspection before they become bottlenecks later.
Coordination
Generate tailored outputs for each stakeholder
Create cleaner handoffs for editors, reviewers, and internal teams so each person gets exactly the context they actually need.
How it works
Built around the real editorial workflow, not a generic AI chat box.
Peerclerk fits how teams already operate. Here's what the process looks like from first ingest to final handoff.
Ingest the manuscript package
Bring in the paper, metadata, figures, and supporting materials to create a consistent starting point for review.
Run structured first-pass checks
Apply configurable review logic to flag issues, summarize findings, and organize the most relevant evidence automatically.
Route outputs to the right people
Share editor-facing summaries, internal notes, or reviewer support views depending on the needs of the process.
Who it's for
Useful anywhere scientific review creates operational drag.
Peerclerk is aimed at teams that handle complex scientific materials and need a more dependable way to manage intake and review coordination.
Journals & editorial teams
Reduce backlog, standardize intake checks, and give managing editors a clearer basis for assigning deeper review. Cut triage time dramatically.
Research organizations
Support grant, publication, or internal review programs with a more consistent way to evaluate scientific materials at scale.
Publishing & infrastructure partners
Explore integrations, pilots, and workflow partnerships around one of the most overloaded steps in the research publishing pipeline.
Why teams trust it
Decision support — not automated judgment.
Built for institutions where auditability, rigor, and trust aren't optional.
Human review stays central
Peerclerk supports the workflow around scientific judgment instead of pretending to replace domain expertise.
Outputs are inspectable
Findings are reviewable, discussable, and easy to pass between teammates in trust-sensitive environments. No black boxes.
Built for careful rollout
Ideal for pilots, internal workflows, and editorial experiments where reliability matters more than flashy automation.
Get in touch
Looking for pilot partners, early collaborators, and investor conversations.
If you manage editorial operations, run a scientific review workflow, or want to explore product fit or investment — we'd love to hear from you.