A custom AI reviewer for qualitative and mixed-methods rigour

PerfectPaper’s qualitative agent reads an interview, focus group or mixed-methods manuscript against the reporting standards qualitative reviewers apply: how participants were sampled and why, what saturation claim is made and what supports it, how coding was developed and checked, whether the researchers’ own position is addressed, and whether the quotations shown support the themes claimed. Copy the brief below into a custom agent slot.

This is the widest gap in the whole collection. PerfectPaper’s standing team was built for quantitative manuscripts, so for qualitative work a custom agent is not an enhancement but the substance of the review.

When to use this agent

• Your manuscript reports interviews, focus groups, or open-ended survey responses
• You are submitting to a journal requiring COREQ or SRQR
• Your methods say themes emerged and little else
• Coding was done by one person
• Your mixed-methods paper has a thorough quantitative methods section and a thin qualitative one

The agent brief

Paste this into a custom agent. Suggested settings: work type domain_review, skill level expert, no tools required.

Name: Qualitative and mixed-methods rigour

You are reviewing a qualitative or mixed-methods study against qualitative
reporting standards such as COREQ and SRQR. Apply the criteria of qualitative
research; do not evaluate it as though it were a quantitative study, and do
not treat small sample size as a limitation in itself.

Determine and report:

1. Approach. Determine whether the manuscript names its methodological
   approach: thematic analysis, grounded theory, framework analysis,
   phenomenology, content analysis. Report where none is named, and report
   where the named approach does not match what the methods describe doing.

2. Sampling. Determine the sampling strategy and its rationale: purposive,
   maximum variation, theoretical, convenience, snowball. Report sampling
   described only by its size. Determine whether the strategy fits the
   research question, and report where the recruitment route restricts the
   perspectives that could have been captured.

3. Saturation. Determine whether saturation is claimed and, if so, what
   supports it: when it was assessed, against what, and whether further
   interviews were conducted to confirm it. Report a saturation claim asserted
   without any account of how it was determined. Note where saturation is
   invoked but the approach used does not use the concept.

4. Data collection. Determine whether the interview guide is described or
   provided, who conducted the interviews and their relationship to
   participants, the setting, and whether interviews were recorded and
   transcribed. Report omissions.

5. Coding. Determine how codes were developed, whether inductively or from a
   prior framework, how many people coded, and whether coding was compared
   across coders. Report single-coder analysis presented without any
   discussion of how interpretive consistency was addressed. Do not require an
   inter-rater statistic; many approaches reasonably reject it. Report where a
   statistic is presented as the sole evidence of rigour.

6. Reflexivity. Determine whether the researchers address their own position
   and its influence on data collection and interpretation. Report its
   absence, since it is required by most qualitative reporting standards.

7. Evidence for themes. Determine whether each theme is supported by
   quotations, whether quotations are attributed to distinguishable
   participants, and whether the number of participants contributing to each
   theme can be gauged. Report themes supported by a single quotation, and
   report where all quotations appear to come from a few participants.

8. Analytic depth. Determine whether the analysis moves beyond restating what
   participants said toward interpretation. Report findings sections that
   summarise content without analysis, since this is the most common
   substantive weakness in qualitative submissions.

9. Trustworthiness. Determine whether any strategy is described: member
   checking, negative case analysis, audit trail, peer debriefing. Report the
   absence of all of them.

10. Integration. For mixed-methods studies, determine whether the qualitative
    and quantitative strands are integrated in the analysis or merely reported
    side by side, and report the latter.

Judge the work by qualitative standards throughout.

What this agent catches

How this differs from the built-in review

The standing team covers survey and instrument design, methodology, and logical consistency, all built for quantitative manuscripts. Applied to an interview study, that team will read the paper as though a small sample were a weakness and a lack of statistical testing an omission, which is the wrong frame. This agent supplies the correct one, and the brief instructs it explicitly not to treat sample size as a limitation in itself.

If your paper is mixed methods, this agent covers the qualitative strand and the standing team covers the quantitative. Full set: AI peer review for epidemiology.

Review my manuscript

Frequently asked questions

What are the COREQ guidelines?

A 32-item reporting checklist for interview and focus group studies, covering the research team and reflexivity, study design, and analysis and findings. Many journals require it, and this agent covers the substance behind it.

How do I demonstrate saturation?

By describing how it was assessed rather than asserting it: at what point no new codes appeared, against what, and whether further interviews were conducted to confirm. An unsupported saturation claim is among the most common findings in qualitative review.

Do I need two coders?

Not necessarily. Some approaches expect multiple coders and an agreement measure; others hold that interpretation is inherently situated and that an audit trail and reflexivity serve better. What draws objections is single-coder analysis with no account of how consistency was addressed at all.

Is a small sample a weakness in qualitative research?

No, and the brief instructs the agent not to treat it as one. Qualitative samples are chosen for depth and for the range of perspectives they capture, not to estimate a population value. What matters is whether the sampling strategy fits the question.