Write manuscripts and answer reviewers
Peereply helps academics shape citation-grounded manuscript sections, organize evidence, and turn the same source context into point-by-point reviewer responses and Word-ready revision files.
The manuscript topic is converted into title anchors and editable facet queries before drafting begins(source card). Source cards are then ranked by topic match, study design, recency, and citation signal(verified source).The next sentence narrows from background evidence to a specific unresolved question with a verified citation(matched paper)
The authors should clarify why the selected measurement approach was preferred over the common alternative and how this affects interpretation of the findings.
We thank the reviewer for this important point. We selected the primary measurement approach because it aligns with the prespecified outcome and provides the resolution required for the analysis. We have added this rationale to the Methods (lines 142-148).
Write manuscripts and answer reviewers from one research workspace.
Peereply is becoming a manuscript workspace: organize sources, shape stronger academic sections, and carry that context into revision letters.
Manuscript Writer
Build a topic-specific library, then develop each section with source-aware suggestions, clickable citations, and clearer literature gaps.
Reviewer Response
Turn reviewer comments into a controlled response package with diplomatic replies, suggested manuscript edits, and exportable redlines.
Start with the research question. Peereply builds the source map before drafting.
Enter any manuscript focus and Peereply will run the same live search and writing pipeline used in the workspace: real library terms, real matched papers, and one source-backed sentence at a time.
Define topic, study type, and citation style
Map broad and specific references by subtopic
Shape section paragraphs with evidence in view
Build the reviewer response package in one pass
Drop in the manuscript, reviewer notes, target journal, and citation style. Peereply prepares the response letter while keeping every edit under your review.
Need help shaping the manuscript before the revision?
Open the writing workspace to structure sections, inspect references by subtopic, and draft with evidence visible while you stay in control of every sentence.
Try the writing workspaceDrop your manuscript here or browse
Supports .docx and .pdf files
Upload your manuscript with Word comments, reviewer comments separately, or both.
Drop comments file or browse
You Stay in Control
AI-assisted drafting with full editorial oversight.
Verified Citations
Automated cross-referencing with your citation library.
Tracked Changes
Native Word integration for seamless final edits.
Trusted for submissions to top-tier journals
Free Tools for Everyone
Tools for writing, communication, and research. Use them as much as you want.
Preflight Check
NewGrammarly-style manuscript analysis before submission
Email Tone Checker
Does your email sound right? Check before you send
Smart Rewriter
Rewrite with readability scores & jargon detection
Word Counter
Word count, readability & journal limits
Citation Formatter
DOI to APA, Vancouver, Harvard & more
Rejection Reframer
Turn rejections into comebacks
Elevator Pitch
Abstract to 30-sec pitch
Journal Finder
Best journals for your paper
Congress Finder
Upcoming conferences with dates & costs
Your time belongs toreal research
Academics spend weeks crafting revision letters, grant rebuttals, and co-author responses. We built Peereply so you can reclaim that time and focus on what actually moves science forward.
Manuscript Revisions
Academic-grade, citation-backed point-by-point responses in minutes, not days. Context-aware drafts grounded in your manuscript and the published literature.
Grant Rebuttals
Tackle reviewer critiques on your NIH, ERC, or NSF proposals with precision. Every response grounded in your proposal text — no hallucinations.
Hours Back to Research
The average revision letter takes 20+ hours. Peereply drafts all responses in under 5 minutes — giving you back time for experiments, data, and discovery.
Peereply vs ChatGPT
Generic AI vs. specialized academic workflow.
| Feature | Peereply | ChatGPT |
|---|---|---|
Manuscript Context | Deep integration with .docx files | Manual text pasting only |
Citation Support | EndNote/Zotero native syncing | Prone to hallucinations |
Output Quality | Publication-ready formal tone | Conversational and generic |
Tracked Changes | Native Word redline markup | No document integration |
Researcher Control | Accept/reject every suggestion | Copy-paste workflow |
See It In Action
Real reviewer comments. Real Peereply responses. Upload your manuscript and let our AI draft publication-ready replies in minutes.
“The discussion lacks sufficient context regarding recent advances in this field. The authors should cite and discuss the findings of Martinez et al. (2024) and compare their results with existing literature more thoroughly.”
“We should definitely cite Martinez (2023) here to address this, but let's keep the response polite and extremely brief.”
We thank the reviewer for pointing out the lack of comparison with current benchmark models. We have now fully validated our model against the benchmark dataset (Martinez et al., 2023), demonstrating robust and superior performance across all core metrics. These additions are reflected in the revised manuscript.
Our model was not previously tested validated against the current benchmark dataset (Martinez et al., 2023), demonstrating robust and superior performance...
Get in Touch
We're always looking for ways to improve. Whether you have feedback, feature requests, or just want to say hello — we'd love to hear from you.