# Peer Reviews

Alfred Scholar's peer review system lets you share manuscripts with reviewers for structured feedback. Reviewers can read the manuscript, highlight passages, leave inline comments, and provide general feedback - all within the platform.

## How peer review works

The peer review flow in Alfred Scholar follows these steps:

1. **Author** finishes a manuscript draft and assigns reviewers.
2. **Reviewers** receive access to the manuscript in a read-only view.
3. **Reviewers** read the manuscript, highlight text, and leave comments.
4. **Author** reviews the feedback, responds to comments, and revises the manuscript.
5. **Author** resolves comments as they address each piece of feedback.

## Assigning reviewers

To invite someone to review your manuscript:

1. Open your manuscript.
2. Click the **Reviewers** panel.
3. Click **Add**.
4. Select a workspace member to assign as a reviewer.
5. The reviewer now has access to the manuscript in read-only mode.

> **Note:** Only workspace members with the **Reviewer** role can be assigned as reviewers. If the reviewer is not yet a member of your workspace, invite them first with the Reviewer role (see [Team Members](/docs/v1.x/team-members)).

## The reviewer experience

### Accessing manuscripts for review

Reviewers can see manuscripts assigned to them by clicking **Peer Reviews** in the sidebar. This shows a list of all manuscripts they have been asked to review.

### Reading the manuscript

Click on a manuscript to open it in a **read-only** view. Reviewers can read the full content but cannot modify the author's text.

### Adding comments

Reviewers can leave two types of comments:

#### Inline comments (on specific text)

1. Select a passage of text in the manuscript.
2. Choose a highlight color.
3. Type your feedback in the comment box and click **Save**.

The selected text is highlighted with your chosen color to show that it has a comment attached.

#### General comments

1. Click the **Comments** panel.
2. Click **Add Comment**.
3. Type your general feedback about the manuscript as a whole.
4. Click **Save**.

General comments are not attached to specific text - they appear in the comments panel for overall feedback.

### Comment threads

Comments support threaded discussions. Both the author and reviewer can reply to comments, creating a back-and-forth conversation about specific points:

1. Click on an existing comment.
2. Type a reply in the thread.
3. Click **Send**.

## Alfred as a reviewer

Alfred can sit on the reviewer list alongside the people you invited. It reads the whole manuscript and returns findings you triage yourself.

Alfred does not use one of your paid reviewer seats. Review rounds are limited by plan: **3 a month on Pro, 10 a month on Lab**. It is a paid feature and is not available without a paid plan.

### Running a review

1. Mark the manuscript **Final**.
2. Open the **Reviewers** panel.
3. Click **Add** and choose **Alfred**.
4. Alfred reads the manuscript and files its findings in the triage panel when the round is done.

### What Alfred reviews

- **Citation integrity** - Citation markers pointing at a source that no longer exists, the same paper cited twice under two records, DOIs that do not resolve, a manuscript that cites sources but has no reference list, and citation styles that drift between two forms. If your reference list was typed by hand, Alfred also finds entries that are never cited and in-text markers with no matching entry.
- **Claims against their sources** - For each claim that cites a source, Alfred reads the source and reports whether it supports the claim, whether the claim goes further than the source does, or whether the source does not support it.
- **Argument and method** - Read one section at a time: claims asserted without support, conclusions the evidence does not reach, contradictions, unjustified design choices, missing limitations, and unstated assumptions.
- **Writing** - The same checks as the manuscript check: spelling that drifts between two forms, jargon with a plain equivalent, wordy phrasing, phrasing that reads as AI, typography, and abbreviations used before they are defined.

### The triage panel

Findings do not go straight into your comment threads. They arrive in a triage panel, grouped by category and by severity:

| Severity      | What it means                                        |
| ------------- | ---------------------------------------------------- |
| **Must fix**  | Something is wrong and a reader will notice.          |
| **Should fix** | Worth addressing before the manuscript goes out.     |
| **Consider**  | A judgement call that is yours to make.               |

Each finding names the passage it refers to, so you can read the sentence before deciding anything.

### Accepting and dismissing

- **Accept** a finding and it becomes a real comment thread, anchored to the passage on the manuscript. From there it behaves like any other comment: reply to it, and resolve it when the revision is done.
- **Dismiss** a finding and nothing is written. The manuscript is left exactly as it was.

> **Note:** There is no score and no verdict at the end of a review. Alfred produces findings for you to read and judge, in the same spirit as the manuscript check.

### Rounds

Every run is a numbered round, stamped with the manuscript version it read. Round 2 sits beside round 1 rather than replacing it, so you can see what changed between them and which findings you have already dealt with.

### The coverage panel

Alfred can only check a citation when it can actually reach the source. There are three ways it can:

1. The paper is in your own library.
2. The paper is open access.
3. Only the abstract is reachable.

When none of those apply, the citation is listed as **unchecked** in the coverage panel and Alfred produces no finding about it. The coverage panel is the record of what the round did and did not cover.

### What Alfred cannot check

- **Citations it cannot reach.** A paywalled journal article with no copy in your library and no reachable abstract is one Alfred has not read. It reports the citation as unchecked rather than judging it.
- **Every citation in the manuscript.** A round covers what it could reach. Read the coverage panel before you treat a clean result as a clean manuscript.
- **Whether the manuscript is good.** There is no score, no grade, and no pass or fail.
- **Whether text was written by AI.** As the manuscript check states, no tool can tell you that, and this one does not claim to either.
- **The judgement your supervisor brings.** Alfred is not a replacement for a human supervisor or for real peer review. Run it *before* you take the draft to your guide or the journal, so their time goes on the things only they can catch.

## Reviewing feedback (for authors)

As the author, you can see all reviewer comments in the **Comments** panel:

- **Inline comments** are highlighted in the text. Click on a highlight to see the comment.
- **General comments** appear in the comments panel.
- **Threads** show the full discussion history.

### Resolving comments

When you have addressed a piece of feedback:

1. Open the comment.
2. Click **Resolve**.

Resolved comments are grouped separately and dimmed. You can unresolve them if needed.

> **Note:** Only top-level comments can be resolved. Replies within a thread are resolved together with the parent comment.

## Removing a reviewer

To remove a reviewer's access to a manuscript:

1. Open the manuscript.
2. Click the **Reviewers** panel.
3. Click the remove button next to the reviewer's name.

The reviewer immediately loses access to the manuscript. Their comments remain visible.

## Exporting

You can export or print a manuscript from the review page:

1. Open the manuscript.
2. Click the **Export** button.
3. Choose **As PDF** or **Print**.

## Best practices

- **Set clear expectations** - Let reviewers know what kind of feedback you are looking for (content accuracy, writing quality, structure, etc.).
- **Use the Reviewer role** - For external reviewers, use the Reviewer workspace role so they can only see assigned manuscripts, not your full library.
- **Respond to all comments** - Even if you disagree with feedback, acknowledge it with a reply before resolving.
- **Resolve systematically** - Address comments in order and resolve them as you go to track your progress.

## Next steps

- **[Check for plagiarism](/docs/v1.x/plagiarism-detection)** after revisions.
- **[Manage your citations](/docs/v1.x/managing-citations)** to ensure all references are correct.