Research Paper Polish

Your claims stay yours.
Only the prose gets polished.

A research-paper polish that respects the boundary between editing and rewriting. Citation-aware (in development). Methods-section disciplined. Tuned to the style of Nature, JAMA, ACM, and 11 other journal families.

Tuned to Per-journal style retrieval Methods-section guard rails Citation IDs are never altered
Built around three guardrails

The three things you can’t afford to let an AI tool touch.

01

Claims are immutable

Rewritelyapp never rewrites a sentence that contains a quantitative claim, a citation, a method name, or a defined variable. These pass through untouched, even when they read awkwardly.

02

Citations are bit-perfect

Citation keys, in-text references, and DOIs are extracted and reinserted character-for-character. We don’t ‘normalize’ them, reformat them, or guess at them.

03

Methods stay passive

Most polish tools push active voice everywhere. Methods sections require passive voice in 9 of our 14 supported journals. Rewritelyapp respects that.

A real example, Discussion section

Sharper prose. Identical claims. Citations intact.

From a manuscript submitted to Bioinformatics, 2025. Used with author permission.

Discussion · opening Methods preservation Citation audit
Citations preserved: 7/7
Draft, before

In this study, we have investigated the effects of FOXP2 mutations on song production in Taeniopygia guttata, leveraging a comprehensive computational pipeline to facilitate downstream analysis. Our findings demonstrate that there exists a statistically significant relationship between the mutation status and song variability (p < 0.05) as previously suggested by Smith et al. (2019).

Polished, after

We examined how FOXP2 mutations alter song production in Taeniopygia guttata[1]. Mutation status was associated with increased song variability (p < 0.05)[2], consistent with Smith et al. (2019)[3].

3 edits applied Strategies: nominal-phrase reduction, claim-tightening, journal-fit verbs Word count: 57 → 32 Citations: 1/1 preserved p-value: preserved exactly
Style guide alignment

14 journal families. Each polish tuned to one.

Nature family

Nature, Nat. Methods, Nat. Biotech

Cell Press

Cell, Neuron, Joule

JAMA / NEJM

Medical research style

PLOS

All PLOS journals

ACM

CS conferences & journals

IEEE

Transactions & conferences

Bioinformatics

Oxford Bioinformatics, NAR

+7 more

Lancet, Elsevier, Springer, AGU…

Don’t see yours? Pick the closest family, or request a new style guide.

Methodology

How a Methods-section guard rail actually works.

When you upload a paper, we segment it: Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion. Each section gets a different polish budget, Methods is the most conservative by design.

In a Methods section, the polish process is restricted to three operations: (1) tightening transitional phrases, (2) replacing nominal-phrase padding, and (3) standardizing tense agreement. Sentence-level rewrites and active-voice conversion are disabled. If you want them, you have to turn them on explicitly, with a warning.

Style guide sources
  1. Nature Author Guidelines, revised April 2026.
  2. JAMA Manual of Style, 11th edition (2020).
  3. ACM Author Guide, current as of Q1 2026.
  4. Bioinformatics Style and Conventions, Oxford UP, 2024 ed.
  5. 11 additional journal style guides, full list in our style guide notes.
1

Section detection

We segment your paper using header detection + a fine-tuned classifier. You can override the segmentation if our detection is wrong.

2

Per-section polish budget

Abstract: aggressive polish. Introduction: standard. Methods: conservative. Results: claim-preserving. Discussion: standard.

3

Citation extraction & reinsertion

Every (Author, Year), [12], and \cite{key} is extracted into a citation table, replaced with a placeholder during polish, and reinserted bit-perfect after.

4

Audit trail

You receive a per-section change log: how many edits per section, what strategies were applied, and any sentences we refused to touch because they crossed a guard rail.

From the people you’d expect to be hardest to convince

PIs, postdocs, and reviewers using Rewritelyapp on their own papers.

“I run a small lab. We can’t afford a copy editor on every manuscript. Rewritelyapp cuts roughly 11% off our typical word count without losing a single claim, and the audit log means I can defend every edit at review.”

Assistant Professor · Computational Biology, Asia-Pacific

“The Methods-section guard rails are the only reason I trust this on my work. Most polish tools want to make my Methods sound ‘active and engaging’. Reviewers don’t want that. Reviewers want it boring.”

Postdoctoral fellow · European technical university

“I sit on three editorial boards. I’ve seen what badly-polished AI text reads like. Rewritelyapp’s output reads like a careful non-native English speaker who got a thoughtful edit. Which, of course, is what most of my students need it to look like.”

Prof. A. Lindgren · Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Computational Neuroscience

Polish a paper before your next submission.

$29 per manuscript up to 10,000 words. Per-section audit log. Money-back guarantee.

Polish my paper →

Group licenses for labs of 5+ available. Contact us →