Compare
AI paper review tools, compared
There are now a dozen tools that will review a paper before you submit it. They differ a lot in price, in what they read, and in who they are built for: CS conference authors or journal authors. This table is from each tool's own pages.
Last checked against official sources on .
Comparison
From each tool's public pages on 2026-10-12. Prices change; follow the links. We left out tools whose pricing we couldn't verify. We make reviewpaper.ai, so read our row with that in mind.
| Tool | Price | What you get | Venue-specific | Limits / delivery | Built for |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| reviewpaper.ai | 3 free reviews; Pro $10/mo for 12 credits; $5 for 5 | 3 reviewer personas + area-chair meta-review, score outlook, ranked fix list, checklist; chat with the paper | Yes: the venue's own form for 29 venues (NeurIPS, ICLR, ICML, CVPR, ARR, AAAI, KDD…) | Whole PDF up to 30 MB; minutes, in the browser; every point linked to the passage | CS / ML / NLP / vision conference authors |
| paperreview.ai (Stanford) | Free | One AI review with suggestions; 1–10 score when the target is ICLR | Optional target venue (ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML, CVPR, ACL…) | First 15 pages, 10 MB; result by email | CS conference authors |
| NeurIPS PAT (Google) | Free, one run per paper | Pre-submission feedback, private to authors | NeurIPS only, inside OpenReview | 7-day window before the NeurIPS 2026 deadline; ~20 MB; typically within 12 hours | NeurIPS authors (similar programmes ran at ICML and ICLR) |
| Bibby AI | Free tier; Research Pro $16/mo ($12/mo annual) | Paper review inside a LaTeX editor | Simulates NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, CVPR and ACL review | Review limits not stated | CS / ML authors writing in its editor |
| Reviewer3 | $19 per review; $29/mo unlimited | A panel's feedback returned as one report | Not stated | In minutes; page limit not stated | Researchers, editors, journals |
| Refine.ink | First document free; $49.99 each, $299.99 for 10 | Error check: reasoning, consistency, claim support, ranked issues | No | 20–40 minutes | Technical fields, especially economics |
| Thesify Reviewer | €14.95 each; €99.95 for 10 | Severity-graded report plus journal matching | Journal matching only | 100 pages / 10 MB; minutes | PhD students, journal manuscripts |
| Manusights | Free scan; $39 full review; $99 dossier | Section-by-section review; dossier is a 4-persona simulated review | Target-journal fit | ~30 minutes to 1+ hour | Journal authors (biomedical-leaning) |
| q.e.d Science | Free for researchers (institutional email) | Claim map, gaps and suggested fixes, novelty | No | Not stated | Academics, mostly life sciences |
| A general chatbot (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) | ~$20/mo subscription | Whatever you prompt for | Only if you paste the form in | Depends on the model's file limits | Everyone |
Which to use
- Submitting to NeurIPS and the PAT window is open? Use it. It's free and built for the venue.
- Want a free second opinion and your paper fits in 15 pages? paperreview.ai. See our side-by-side.
- CS conference paper, appendix matters, and you want the actual review form with several reviewers, an area chair and passage-linked points: reviewpaper.ai.
- Journal manuscript, especially biomedical or economics: Manusights, Refine.ink or Thesify are built for that.
- Writing in a LaTeX editor anyway? Bibby bundles a reviewer with its editor.
Versus a chatbot prompt
A general chatbot can review a paper if you prompt it well. What a dedicated tool adds is structure you would otherwise have to build yourself: the venue's exact form and scales, several independent reviewer personas, a meta-review that weighs them, evidence you can check, and a prioritised list of what to fix.
Privacy questions to ask any tool
- Is my paper used to train models? (reviewpaper.ai: no; see our privacy policy.)
- Who else processes the PDF, and can I delete it and its reviews?
- Is anything shared with venues or other users?
- If you're a reviewer: does your venue allow it at all? Most don't. See LLM policies by venue.
See a full report first
Open a real reviewpaper.ai report on a published paper: three ICLR-form reviews, an area-chair meta-review and a fix list, every point linked to the PDF. No sign-up.
Open the sample reportSources
reviewpaper.ai is not affiliated with any of the tools or venues named here or its organizers. Rules change between cycles; the official pages above always win.