Peer Review Simulation

About the xPeerd API Server

Peer Review Simulation Infrastructure

The xPeerd API Server provides metered programmatic access to
xPeer, a specialised engine for simulating scholarly peer review.
It enables publishers, journals, conferences, universities, research organisations
and software developers to integrate structured manuscript evaluation into their
own platforms and workflows.

The service is available at
xpeerd.online
and is developed and operated by
KNOWDYN.

1. What Is the xPeerd API Server?

The xPeerd API Server is the programmatic delivery layer of the xPeer peer-review
simulation system. It allows an authorised application to submit a scholarly
manuscript, select a defined review task and receive a structured review output.

Instead of requiring every user to conduct a review through a conversational
website, the API Server enables peer-review simulation to be incorporated into
existing digital services. These may include manuscript-submission systems,
editorial platforms, conference-management software, institutional research
portals and internal quality-assurance workflows.

Access is metered through account-based subscriptions and API credentials. Usage
can therefore be allocated, monitored and managed according to the customer’s
plan and operational requirements.

The xPeerd API Server is not a general-purpose writing assistant. It is a
task-specific service designed around the analysis and simulation of scholarly
peer review.

2. xPeer, xPeerd.com and xPeerd.online

The xPeerd system contains three distinct layers.

Component Role
xPeer The underlying peer-review simulation engine. It examines scholarly manuscripts
through defined review tasks and generates structured analytical reports.
xPeerd.com The conversational user interface. It allows individual users to interact with
xPeer through a guided web experience.
xPeerd.online The metered API Server. It enables software systems and organisational workflows
to access xPeer programmatically and at scale.

The distinction is operationally important. xPeer performs the simulation;
xPeerd.com provides direct conversational access; and xPeerd.online provides the
infrastructure required for software integration.

3. Why the API Server Exists

Peer review is under increasing pressure. Submission volumes are rising,
manuscripts are becoming more specialised and interdisciplinary, and qualified
reviewers have limited time. Editors must often manage large pipelines while
maintaining consistency, confidentiality and scientific integrity.

The answer is not to remove human reviewers from the process. Peer review requires
disciplinary knowledge, contextual understanding, ethical judgment and personal
accountability.

The xPeerd API Server was created to provide a structured analytical layer around
that human expertise.

Its purpose is to help organisations:

  • identify manuscript weaknesses before formal submission;
  • support reviewers with structured analytical guidance;
  • provide editors with an additional layer of manuscript scrutiny;
  • standardise selected review procedures across large submission volumes;
  • generate actionable revision recommendations;
  • surface methodological, reporting and reproducibility concerns;
  • prepare conference submissions for evaluation and discussion; and
  • preserve a clearer operational record of automated review activity.

The API Server makes these capabilities available within systems that scholarly
organisations already use.

4. Five Stable Review Scenarios

xPeer is accessed through stable review scenarios. Each scenario defines a
particular scholarly task, expected analytical pathway and report structure.

The term stable refers to procedural consistency. The same scenario
invokes the same core review purpose and analytical obligations, even though the
content of each report depends on the manuscript being assessed.

Scenario Purpose
DAReview A detailed autonomous review examining the manuscript’s methods, evidence,
arguments, reporting, reproducibility and presentation.
HCReview A human-centred review designed to guide a qualified reviewer towards passages,
questions and concerns requiring expert judgment.
DBReviewSim A double-blind review simulation that produces independent reviewer perspectives
and structured editorial decision support.
PRR A simulation of potential rejection reasons intended to help authors identify
publication risks before submitting a manuscript.
confReview A conference-review scenario for evaluating submissions and generating critical
questions for presentation, discussion or programme selection.

A detailed explanation is available in

What Are Stable Review Prompts?

5. How It Works

A typical xPeerd API workflow contains five stages.

  1. Authenticate the request.
    The authorised application submits valid API credentials associated with an
    active xPeerd API Server account.
  2. Provide the manuscript.
    The application supplies the scholarly document or an authorised location from
    which it can be retrieved.
  3. Select the review scenario.
    The application identifies the stable review task required for the manuscript
    and intended workflow.
  4. Run the simulation.
    xPeer examines the manuscript and generates the requested structured review
    output.
  5. Return the report.
    The resulting review is delivered to the authorised application for human
    inspection, storage, presentation or further workflow processing.

The customer remains responsible for deciding how the output is displayed,
interpreted and incorporated into any author, reviewer or editorial process.

6. Who the Service Is For

Publishers and journals

Publishers and journals can use the API Server to introduce structured manuscript
scrutiny into submission, screening, revision and editorial-support workflows.
The service can help editorial teams identify issues that require specialist
attention without transferring final authority to the simulation engine.

Conference organisers

Conference-management platforms can use xPeer to support submission assessment,
methodological screening and the generation of questions for programme committees
or live scholarly discussion.

Universities and research institutions

Institutions can provide researchers with pre-submission evaluation, manuscript
development support and structured research-quality workflows through their own
internal systems.

Research software developers

Developers can integrate peer-review simulation into scholarly writing tools,
research-management platforms, repositories and specialist applications without
building a complete review engine independently.

Research teams and professional services

Research groups, consultancies and scholarly-support organisations can use the API
to standardise selected elements of manuscript assessment across multiple projects
and users.

7. Human Oversight and Accountability

xPeer is designed to support human scholarly judgment, not replace it.

A simulation report may identify a methodological concern, unsupported claim,
reporting omission or possible rejection risk. The existence of that observation
does not establish automatically that it is scientifically correct, sufficiently
important or relevant to the final editorial decision.

Human users remain responsible for:

  • reading and understanding the manuscript;
  • verifying the accuracy of generated observations;
  • assessing the scientific significance of each concern;
  • distinguishing major issues from minor recommendations;
  • checking compliance with disciplinary and journal standards;
  • disclosing automated assistance where required;
  • protecting confidential manuscripts; and
  • making final scholarly and editorial decisions.

The API Server should therefore be deployed as an additional scrutiny layer within
a human-governed process.

Further information is available in

Ethical Peer Review Simulation with xPeerd
.

8. Evidence and Reproducibility

xPeer has been examined through an open operational and human-reference benchmark.
The study evaluated the structure and observable properties of xPeer simulations
and compared paired xPeer reports with manuscript-linked human review reports.

The findings indicated different review profiles rather than a universal winner.
xPeer generated broader and more action-oriented scrutiny across several measured
dimensions, while human reviews demonstrated stronger performance in other areas,
including explicit reasoning and manuscript attestation.

The benchmark does not claim that every generated concern is scientifically
correct or that xPeer should make autonomous publication decisions. Those
questions remain subject to qualified expert adjudication.

The study records, analytical materials and reproducibility resources are
available through Zenodo:

9. Privacy and Intellectual Property

Scholarly manuscripts may contain unpublished findings, confidential information,
personal data and commercially valuable intellectual property. Protecting that
material is therefore a central operational requirement.

Documents submitted through the API are processed for the requested peer-review
simulation and related short-lived technical purposes. Customer manuscripts are
not treated as an unauthorised training corpus merely because they have been
submitted to the service.

Customers remain responsible for ensuring that they have the authority to submit
a document, particularly when it was received through a confidential journal,
publisher, conference or institutional process.

Details concerning account information, API usage, manuscript processing,
retention, service providers, international transfers and user rights are provided
in the
xPeerd API Server Privacy Policy.

10. About KNOWDYN

The xPeer engine and xPeerd services are developed and operated by

KNOWDYN LTD
.

KNOWDYN is an intellectual-property custodian and licensor registered in England
and Wales. Its work includes scientific, engineering and artificial-intelligence
assets intended to improve how knowledge is produced, evaluated and applied.

Within that portfolio, xPeer addresses the infrastructure of scholarly
evaluation. Its purpose is to make peer-review scrutiny more structured,
accessible, reproducible and operationally scalable while preserving human
responsibility for science.

Deploy Peer-Review Simulation Through the xPeerd API Server

The xPeerd API Server provides metered access to five stable simulation scenarios
through monthly subscription plans.


Visit the xPeerd API Server

For individual conversational access to xPeer, visit

xPeerd.com
.