reviseus
Peer review, built for research teams

Better reviews.Stronger research.

Bring drafts, reviewers, deadlines, and decisions into one focused workspace, so every paper moves forward with clarity.

AI Screening

Multi-Round Reviews

Any Venue by URL

Cross-Lab Papers

Welcome Back

Enter your credentials to access the platform

Forgot password?
New Research Lab?

Overview

Lab Workflow

Everything a lab needs from manuscript preparation to submission AI screening, review rounds, deadline management, and compliance with the venue’s specific requirements.

AI Reads the Draft Before Your Reviewers Do

Upload a PDF and it is checked against the things reviewers always flag unsupported claims, weak citations, missing empirical detail, and the venue's own submission rules. Every finding quotes the source it came from.

Venue Criteria CheckSolution Paper Page LimitsPass
Required
5–10 pages of main text. Up to 2 more for references only.
Paper
10 pages. References begin mid-page 9, so main text stays within the cap.
Note
Within the allowed range.

“Submissions must not exceed 10 pages… Up to two additional pages containing ONLY references are permitted.”

conf.researchr.org/track/icse-2027-industry-challenge

  • AI Peer Review
  • Hallucination Check
  • Citation Suggestions
  • Empirical Checklist
  • Venue Criteria
  • Annotated Review

Reviews Close in Rounds

Each revision opens a new round with its own assignments, deadlines, and history so the third draft still knows what the first one was told.

Deadlines That Actually Hold

Review deadlines are capped by the venue's real submission date. Reviewers request extensions, coordinators approve or counter-propose.

Roles Scoped to the Work

Coordinators assign, authors revise, reviewers respond. Permissions can be delegated, and one person can hold different roles in different labs.

Platform

Comprehensive Features

Eighteen capabilities across three areas what the AI checks, how reviews get coordinated, and how a draft reaches a real submission portal.

AI Assistance

Automated passes over the manuscript, each grounded in a quote.

  • AI & Formal Review

    A full peer review written against the venue's own rubric plus a structured formal review when you need scores.

  • Hallucination Check

    Flags claims the manuscript cannot support and references that do not check out.

  • Citation Suggestions

    Finds related work worth citing and shows where in the paper it belongs.

  • Empirical Checklist

    Checks the study design details reviewers ask for baselines, metrics, threats to validity.

  • Venue Criteria Check

    Reads the CFP and checks the PDF against it: template, page limits, anonymization, and more.

  • Annotated Review

    Comments anchored to the page and paragraph they refer to, not a wall of text.

Review Operations

The coordination work that usually lives in email threads.

  • Reviewer Assignment

    Topic matched suggestions ranked by research interest, with current workload in view.

  • Extension Requests

    Reviewers ask for more time; coordinators approve, reject, or counter-propose a date.

  • Discussion Threads

    Nested comments on each review so authors and reviewers can resolve a point in place.

  • Review Evaluations

    Authors rate the reviews they receive, so review quality is visible rather than assumed.

  • Voluntary Reviews

    Lab members browse review-ready papers and volunteer for the ones they can help with.

  • Reviewer Analytics

    On-time rates, workload, and quality ratings per reviewer and per lab.

Venues & Submission

From an internal draft to the real submission portal.

  • Any Venue by URL

    Not in the catalogue? Paste the track's call-for-papers link and its rules are read for that paper.

  • Venue & Track Catalogue

    Conferences and journals with per-track deadlines, kept current from the source pages.

  • Submission Portals

    The HotCRP or EasyChair link for your exact track or nothing, rather than the wrong one.

  • Cross-Lab Papers

    Invite a partner lab onto a paper while access stays scoped to what each lab should see.

  • Round History

    Every past round kept intact reviews, decisions, and the draft they applied to.

  • Private by Default

    Unpublished work stays inside the lab. Nothing is shared outside it unless you say so.

Process

The Review Workflow

Five steps, clear handoffs, and a loop back for every revision because papers rarely go round only once.

  1. 01Author

    Submit the Draft

    Upload the PDF and pick a venue and track or link one by URL. Title and abstract are pulled from the file.

  2. 02AI

    Automated Screening

    Hallucination, citation, empirical, and venue-criteria checks run on the manuscript before a human opens it.

  3. 03Coordinator

    Assign Reviewers

    The coordinator picks from topic-matched suggestions, with workload visible and deadlines capped by the venue.

  4. 04Reviewer

    Peer Review

    Reviewers leave ratings and anchored comments, open threads on specific points, and request more time if they need it.

  5. 05Everyone

    Revise & Decide

    The author responds, rates the reviews received, and either closes the paper out or opens the next round.

Revisions Open the Next Round — assignments, deadlines, and history carry over.