Fact-check a preprint's claims, citations, and effect sizes

Built for peer reviewers, editors, PIs, and authors

The workflow

The 9-step workflow: upload to verified verdict

1. 1

   Upload the document and request a fact-check of its core mechanistic claims

   Attach a PDF (preprint, manuscript, or proposal) and ask BioSkepsis to verify its central claims against the published literature, providing relevant citations for each validated or challenged assertion.

   Example prompt

   "Fact check this preprint article and give me all relevant citations"

2. 2

   Review the initial fact-check synthesis

   BioSkepsis returns a structured verification organised by the document's main mechanistic claims. Each claim is tagged as validated, partially supported, or not reported (NR) with PMID-grounded evidence. Check the unverified citations panel — this is where the system catches mismatches between what the document asserts and what the cited papers actually show.

3. 3

   Request a deeper verification of the core claim

   Ask BioSkepsis to re-verify the central mechanistic chain with more granularity. This second pass often surfaces additional supporting or contradicting evidence that the first pass did not fully elaborate.

   Example prompt

   "Verify the core claim"

4. 4

   Verify cited effect sizes and quantitative claims

   Ask BioSkepsis to check the specific numbers, statistics, and quantitative results the document cites. This catches inflated effect sizes, misquoted p-values, or figures that do not match the source papers.

   Example prompt

   "Check cited effect sizes"

5. 5

   Identify contradicting or qualifying evidence the authors did not cite

   Ask what published studies contradict or qualify the document's main conclusions that were not included in its reference list. This exposes selective citation.

   Example prompt

   "What published studies contradict or qualify the main conclusions of this preprint that we did not cite?"

6. 6

   Assess whether the proposed mechanism is established, contested, or speculative

   Ask BioSkepsis to evaluate each link in the proposed mechanistic chain and classify it as well-established, contested, or speculative based on the broader literature.

   Example prompt

   "The preprint proposes a specific biological mechanism. What does the broader literature show about this mechanism — is it well-established, contested, or speculative?"

7. 7

   Check for selective citation bias

   Ask whether the document's references are representative of the field or whether the authors have selectively cited papers that support their argument while ignoring those that do not.

   Example prompt

   "Are the references in this preprint representative of the field, or has the author selectively cited papers that support their argument while ignoring those that don't?"

8. 8

   Evaluate the reliability of the experimental methods

   Ask what the literature says about the reliability, limitations, and known pitfalls of the specific experimental methods or analytical approaches used in the document.

   Example prompt

   "The preprint uses a specific experimental method or analytical approach. What does the literature say about the reliability, limitations, and known pitfalls of this method?"

9. 9

   Verify sample sizes, gene/protein attributions, missing citations, and novelty claims

   Close the fact-check by probing four remaining dimensions: whether the sample sizes and power claims are adequate, whether the document's attribution of function to specific genes or proteins is confirmed by the literature, what the authors should have cited but did not, and whether the novelty claim holds or has been undermined by prior work.

   Example prompt

   "Verify sample size and power claims" "The preprint attributes a specific function or disease association to a gene, protein, or variant. Does the published literature confirm this attribution, or is the evidence weaker than presented?" "Identify what the authors should have cited but didn't" "The preprint claims this finding is novel or first-of-its-kind. Has anything similar been published before that would undermine that claim?"

What you walk away with

• Claim-by-claim verdict — each main claim tagged validated, partially supported, or not reported, every verdict PMID-grounded

• Effect-size & stats check — inflated effect sizes, misquoted p-values, mismatched figures, and weak sample-size or power claims caught

• Selective-citation audit — contradicting or qualifying evidence the authors omitted, plus what they should have cited but did not

• Methods & novelty assessment — reliability and pitfalls of the techniques used, and whether the "first-of-its-kind" claim actually holds

Honest limits

• BioSkepsis verifies against what is published and indexed. It cannot check raw data, rerun analyses, or detect fabrication that the literature does not contradict.

• A "not reported" (NR) tag means the corpus does not confirm a claim — not that it is false. Absence of supporting evidence is not proof of error.

• It assists peer review; it does not replace it. The reviewer's judgement and the journal's process remain the decision-makers.

• Verify each flagged citation against the source before acting on it in a review, rebuttal, or revision.

Frequently asked

Related use cases