Check your paper before a journal does
A mock peer review of your manuscript before you submit it; once the reviewers have spoken, a point-by-point response letter and a corrected manuscript with tracked changes; or just a language polish of the whole paper. Built only from what you upload: nothing invented.
Price, for either service: ₦5,000 for a manuscript of up to 14,999 words, ₦10,000 from 15,000 up to 30,000 words. Optional language polish (grammar, spelling and expression, as tracked changes in Word): +₦3,000 for any size. You see your word count and exact price before you pay.
Language polish, by size: ₦3,000 up to 10,000 words, ₦4,000 to 20,000, ₦5,000 to 30,000, ₦7,000 to 50,000, ₦8,500 to 70,000, ₦10,000 to 100,000 (from 1,500 words). Undergraduate projects and postgraduate theses fit. Word (.docx) or text (.txt) files only. Every correction arrives as a tracked change in Word with a short comment saying why, in your own file and layout. Your numbers, citations, quotations and reference list are never changed. Headings, the author block, captions and tables get a typing check only, and names of people and places are flagged for you, never changed. You see your word count before you pay.
Preparing your documents
Starting...
This usually takes three to ten minutes. You can close this tab: we email you a link when it is ready.
Your review
Something went wrong
This upload was started in another tab
For your privacy, an unpaid upload can only be opened in the browser tab that started it. Start a new one, or go back to that tab.
Pay to start your review
The language polish is offered for Word (.docx) and text (.txt) files. A PDF cannot carry tracked changes.
After payment you also get an email with a link. The email address you pay with opens your documents on any device. Your uploaded file is deleted from our server as soon as your documents are ready, or after three days if you do not pay.
Open your paid order
This order has been paid for. To open it here, enter the email address you used at payment.
Confirming your payment...
See what you get
These are examples on a made-up paper, shown in full so you can judge the layout and the kind of help before you pay. Your own documents are written about your own manuscript, and every point in them is checked against it.
Pre-Submission Review Report
1. Summary of the paper
The paper asks whether households that use mobile money save more than households that do not. It draws on a cross-sectional survey of 412 rural households and compares reported monthly savings between users and non-users, controlling for income, education and distance to a bank branch. It reports that users save about 31 percent more than non-users and concludes that mobile money adoption raises household savings. It recommends that policymakers extend mobile money agent networks to remote communities. The contribution is a rural household perspective in a setting where most earlier work has used urban samples.
2. Strengths
- The research question is stated clearly in the first paragraph of the Introduction.
- The survey instrument is described, and the response rate is reported.
- Control variables are chosen with reasons, and each is defined in Table 1.
- The policy recommendations follow from the findings the paper reports.
3. Major concerns
Major concern 1 — Methodology
Issue: The sample is described as random, but the paper never says how households were listed or reached, so a reader cannot tell whether the 412 households represent rural households in the study area.
In the manuscript: “Households were randomly selected from the study communities.”
Why it matters: A journal reviewer will ask how randomness was achieved. Without a sampling frame the main result may be read as applying only to the households that were easy to reach.
Suggested fix: Add a short paragraph naming the list used to select households, how many were approached, how many took part, and how replacements were handled. (effort: moderate)
Major concern 2 — Results
Issue: The abstract and Table 3 give different sizes for the main effect: the abstract says 38 percent, while Table 3 reports 31.2 percent.
In the manuscript: “Mobile money users saved 38% more than non-users.”
Why it matters: Numbers that disagree between the abstract and the tables are one of the first things reviewers notice, and they weaken trust in the rest of the results.
Suggested fix: Decide which figure is correct, and make the abstract, the text of Section 4 and Table 3 agree. (effort: small)
Major concern 3 — Conclusion
Issue: The conclusion uses causal wording (adoption raises savings) for a result from a single cross-sectional survey, which can show association but not cause.
In the manuscript: “Mobile money adoption raises household savings.”
Why it matters: Reviewers often reject causal claims that the design cannot support.
Suggested fix: Reword the conclusion and abstract as an association, and say in the limitations that households that save more may be more likely to adopt mobile money. (effort: small)
4. Minor concerns
Minor concern 1 — Introduction
Issue: The contribution of the paper is stated only in the last sentence of the Introduction, after a long background.
Why it matters: Readers and reviewers look for the contribution early.
Suggested fix: Bring the sentence that states the contribution forward, to the end of the first or second paragraph. (effort: small)
Minor concern 2 — Tables
Issue: Table 2 does not say how many households each group contains.
Why it matters: Group sizes are needed to read the averages.
Suggested fix: Add the number of households for users and non-users in the table or its note. (effort: small)
5. Methods check
| Check | Status | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Research questions or hypotheses stated | Done | The question is stated in the first paragraph. |
| Sample size and sampling explained | Needs attention | The size is given, but how households were selected is not explained. (“Households were randomly selected from the study communities.”) |
| Every variable defined with its measurement | Done | Table 1 defines each variable and its unit. |
| Diagnostic or robustness checks reported | Missing | No robustness check is reported; one would be expected in Section 4. |
| Numbers consistent between abstract, text and tables | Needs attention | The abstract and Table 3 give different effect sizes. |
| Limitations stated | Done | Section 5.3 sets out limitations of the data. |
6. Reference check
The reference list has 38 entries.
Citations and reference list
2 in-text citations could not be matched to an entry in the reference list (check the author's name and year in both places):
- (Adeyemi, 2019)
- Okonkwo and Bassey (2021)
2 reference-list entries do not appear to be cited in the text:
- Example, A. (2016). Savings groups in imaginary villages. Journal of Example Studies, 3(1), 10–25.
- Sample, B. and Test, C. (2018). A report on invented lending. Example Press.
Matching is by author name and year, so an unusual citation format can produce a false match or miss. Treat these lists as places to look, not verdicts.
Do the cited works exist?
36 entries were looked up in OpenAlex, an index of over 250 million scholarly works. 33 were found with a matching title and year. 2 could not be checked (no readable title, or beyond the first 60 entries).
Found, but the year differs from the indexed record:
| No. | Entry | Year written | Year in OpenAlex |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | Demo, D. (2017). Digital payments and thrift. Journal of Example Finance, 4(2), 11–30. | 2017 | 2018 |
Not found in OpenAlex:
| No. | Entry |
|---|---|
| 27 | Ministry of Example (2020). Annual report on household finance. |
Not being found does not mean a work does not exist: many regional journals, books, reports, theses and government documents are not indexed. Check each of these by hand against its source.
7. Prioritised fix list
| No. | Priority | What to do | Section |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | High | Add a short paragraph naming the list used to select households, how many were approached, how many took part, and how replacements were handled. | Methodology |
| 2 | High | Decide which figure is correct, and make the abstract, the text of Section 4 and Table 3 agree. | Results |
| 3 | High | Reword the conclusion and abstract as an association, and say in the limitations that households that save more may be more likely to adopt mobile money. | Conclusion |
| 4 | Medium | Sample size and sampling explained: The size is given, but how households were selected is not explained. | Methods |
| 5 | Medium | Diagnostic or robustness checks reported: No robustness check is reported; one would be expected in Section 4. | Methods |
| 6 | Medium | Add reference-list entries for 2 in-text citations that have none, or correct the citations (listed in the reference check). | References |
| 7 | Medium | Check 2 references by hand: some years differ from the indexed record, and some could not be found in OpenAlex. | References |
| 8 | Low | Cite or remove 2 reference-list entries that the text does not appear to cite. | References |
| 9 | Low | Bring the sentence that states the contribution forward, to the end of the first or second paragraph. | Introduction |
| 10 | Low | Add the number of households for users and non-users in the table or its note. | Tables |
This report was prepared by RAGReviewer from the text of the manuscript you uploaded, as a self-check before submission. It comments only on that text: it cannot see figures saved as images, equations, supplementary files or anything outside the manuscript, and every point in it was checked against the manuscript before it was included. A journal's own reviewers may raise different points. You remain responsible for your manuscript and for any changes you make.
Response to Reviewers
Dear Professor A. Example,
Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript, “Mobile money and household savings in rural communities (fictional paper)”, for Journal of Example Economics. We are grateful to the reviewers for their careful reading and helpful comments. Below, each comment is reproduced in italics, followed by our response and, where the manuscript was changed, the revised text. A version of the manuscript with all changes tracked is also provided.
Reviewer 1
Comment 1.1
The description of how households were sampled is hard to find and incomplete. Please explain more clearly how the 412 households were selected.
Response: Thank you. We have moved the sampling description into its own sub-section (3.2) and set out the list the households were drawn from, how they were chosen and how replacements were handled, using the details already in Appendix A.
Revised text (3.2 Sampling): “Households were drawn from the 2023 community register of the 12 study villages (see Appendix A), using a random number for each entry; households that could not be reached were replaced by the next entry on the list.”
Comment 1.2
Please add a robustness check using an alternative measure of savings, for example savings as a share of income.
Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We re-estimated the model using savings as a share of income. [AUTHOR: report the result of that check here, and the table or section where it now appears.]
Reviewer 2
Comment 2.1
The abstract reports a larger effect than Table 3. Please make them consistent.
Response: Thank you for spotting this. The abstract now reports 31.2 percent, the figure in Table 3 and in Section 4.
Revised text (Abstract): “Mobile money users saved 31.2% more than non-users.”
Comment 2.2
The paper does not discuss any limitations of the study.
Response: We appreciate the concern. The limitations of the data, including the cross-sectional design and self-reported savings, are discussed in Section 5.3. We have added a pointer to that section at the end of the Conclusion so that it is easy to find.
Comment 2.3
The policy relevance of the topic is clear.
Response: Thank you for this encouraging comment.
We hope the revised manuscript addresses the reviewers' concerns and is now suitable for publication in Journal of Example Economics, and we thank you again for your consideration.
Yours sincerely,
A. Author (corresponding author)
Revision notes — for the author, not for submission
Delete this part before sending the letter. It lists every comment, what changed in the manuscript, and what is still yours to do. Highlighted [AUTHOR: …] notes in the letter above mark the same points.
Change log
| Comment | Reviewer's point | Where | Change | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | The description of how households were sampled is hard to find and incomplete. Please explain more clearly how the 412 households were selected. | 3.2 Sampling | 1 passage revised | Revised |
| 1.2 | Please add a robustness check using an alternative measure of savings, for example savings as a share of income. | — | Nothing changed yet | Author to complete |
| 2.1 | The abstract reports a larger effect than Table 3. Please make them consistent. | Abstract | 1 passage revised | Revised |
| 2.2 | The paper does not discuss any limitations of the study. | — | Explained in the response; no change | Author to confirm |
| 2.3 | The policy relevance of the topic is clear. | — | No change needed | No change needed |
Still to do (2)
- Comment 1.2: Author to complete — This needs an analysis only you can run. Run the model with savings as a share of income, then complete the response with your result.
- Comment 2.2: Author to confirm
Prepared by RAGReviewer from your manuscript and the reviewer comments you supplied. Changes to the manuscript only reword or clarify what it already said; nothing that needs your own data, analysis or references was written for you. Read every response and every change before you submit, and check the corrected manuscript against your original (equations, text boxes, footnote layout and some formatting may not carry over from Word).
Mobile money and household savings in rural communities
1. Introduction
Many households in rural areas hashave no access to a bank branch. InfactIn fact, mobile money agents are often the only formal financial point within walking distance.
2. Data and method
We collectcollected data from 412 households using a structured questionnaire , whichthat covered income, savings and distance to the nearest bank (Okafor, 2019). Savings waswere measured in naira per month.
3. Results
Mobile money users save about 31 percent more than non-users. This results suggestsThese results suggest that agent networks matter a lotconsiderably for savings.
What was left alone: the number “412”, “31 percent”, the citation “(Okafor, 2019)” and the reference list. If a suggested correction could change what you mean, it is not applied; it is raised for you in a Word comment instead.
In Word, each tracked correction carries a short comment such as “Grammar: subject and verb did not agree.” A one-page summary lists the corrections by type and anything left for you to decide, for example a name that may be misspelt (names are never changed, only flagged).
Example only. Your polished manuscript keeps your own layout, and every correction can be accepted or rejected in Word.