Manuscript Grader · LJX Services

Manuscript Grader

Chemistry · Materials · Experimental physics

Upload a manuscript and three independent language-model graders read it several times each. You get a single calibrated score with its uncertainty, where that score sits against 28 journals whose standards we measured on 560 published papers, and which of those journals actually fit your subject.

£1.00 per run (about $1.20). Your card is authorised when you submit and charged only when a result is delivered — if a run fails, the authorisation is cancelled and you are never charged.

PDF, DOCX, TXT or Markdown, up to 25 MB and 2000–20000 words. Writing in LaTeX? Upload the compiled PDF. Supporting information in the same file is removed automatically.

This is how you find your results later, at My runs. There are no accounts and no email. Anyone who knows this ID can see your results — make it long and private, and keep it: we cannot recover it.

If you name one, we show where it lands. It never changes the score.

By uploading you accept the terms. Your manuscript is sent to the model providers named in the privacy note, all with training and data collection refused.

What you get

The 28 journals

Ordered by how demanding they proved to be on our benchmark, most demanding first. We publish the order, never the numbers.

  1. Nature
  2. Science
  3. Nature Physics
  4. Nature Materials
  5. Nature Nanotechnology
  6. Nature Chemistry
  7. Nature Energy
  8. Nature Electronics
  9. Physical Review X
  10. Science Advances
  11. Nature Communications
  12. Chem
  13. Joule
  14. Physical Review Letters
  15. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
  16. Journal of the American Chemical Society
  17. Angewandte Chemie International Edition
  18. ACS Central Science
  19. Advanced Materials
  20. CCS Chemistry
  21. Advanced Functional Materials
  22. Chemical Science
  23. JACS Au
  24. Physical Review B
  25. Small
  26. Macromolecules
  27. Journal of Materials Chemistry A
  28. Chemical Communications

What this is not

It is not peer review, and it is not a prediction of an editor's decision. It is a calibrated second opinion, produced by language models that can be wrong and can be gamed. Use it to sanity-check where you were going to submit, not to decide whether the work is any good.