Structured peer review for your research papers.
Calibrated scores, citation audit, and passage-linked comments in an editable workspace you can share with collaborators.
...comparing negative and positive associations, we observed a clear bias towards unfavorable effects, corresponding to increased risk of hospitalization across multiple disease categories.
This reveals strong residual confounding in the pipeline. A screen that produces a systematic excess of harms suggests the matching does not fully neutralize confounding by indication.
Know exactly where your paper stands.
Calibrated scores, citation audit, passage-linked comments. Edit the review, annotate passages, request revisions, export to Markdown or LaTeX, share with co-authors.
This week's top-rated papers.
We evaluate thousands of new papers each week and surface the ones with the strongest evidence, methodology, and citation support.
Mar 30 – Apr 3, 2026
| # | Paper | Score | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 78.9 | ||
| 2 | Yuan Hao et al.Robotics | 77.2 | |
| 3 | Zhisheng Huang et al.Computer Vision | 77.1 | |
| 4 | Chanh Nguyen, Erik ElmrothDistributed Computing | 75.6 | |
| 5 | 75.3 | ||
| 6 | Yanjiao Song et al.Computer Vision | 74.6 | |
| 7 | 73.7 | ||
| 8 | 73.1 | ||
| 9 | Francisco Galuppo Azevedo et al.Machine Learning | 71.0 | |
| 10 | Zhijie Tang et al.quant-ph | 54.1 |
Sign up free and start reviewing.
Your first review is free. Or pay $10 for a single review without an account.