Sample reports

See PerfectPaper in action

Browse real review reports across disciplines — each one shows the structured, sourced feedback PerfectPaper delivers before you submit.

Neuroscience

Chaotic balanced state in a model of cortical circuits

PerfectPaper flagged three structural concerns: the mean-field derivation assumes stationarity without justification, the simulation parameters lack reproducibility anchors, and two figures carry inconsistent axis conventions.

Engineering

Coset codes — Part I: Introduction and geometrical classification

The review identified an underspecified proof sketch in Section 4, a notation collision between the lattice and quotient-group sections, and a missing comparison with prior partition-based constructions.

Mathematics

Inference in molecular population genetics

Seven comments addressed the likelihood derivation, including a sign error in the mutation-drift balance equation and an undisclosed approximation in the coalescent integral that affects asymptotic claims.

Economics

Robust market interventions

The feedback highlighted that the minimax regret criterion in Section 3 conflates ex-ante and ex-post welfare, and that the numerical simulations use a parameter range that favors the proposed mechanism without explanation.

Public Health

Rural–urban divides and cultural dynamics in vaccine hesitancy

PerfectPaper raised five comments: the psychometric scales needed Cronbach alpha reporting, the causal DAG lacked stated adjustment sets, and subgroup sample counts in Table 4 did not reconcile with the totals in Section 4.1.

Computer Science

Targeting interventions in networks

The review noted an ambiguity in the influence-maximisation problem formulation, a missing discussion of computational complexity relative to greedy baselines, and an incomplete related-work comparison with cascade models from the past three years.

Reports span 40+ disciplines. More samples added regularly.

Ready to review your own manuscript?

Upload your paper and receive structured, sourced feedback in minutes — the way a thoughtful peer reviewer would give it.