See clearly when AI
makes it easy to
stop looking.
20/20 gives you the context behind every claim before you read a line, and leaves the judgment yours.
36%
of AACR cancer-journal abstracts contained AI-generated text
AACR / Science.org, 2025
14,000+
retraction notices in 2023, a record year
Retraction Watch Database, 2025
60,000+
cumulative retractions and counting
Retraction Watch / Crossref, 2025
Checked · 2026
Submission
20/20 Report
Reviewer Notes
Nanoparticle-mediated drug delivery in glioblastoma
Submitted to International Review of Biomedical Systems, 2026
Recent studies demonstrate that nanoparticle carriers achieve 94% blood-brain barrier penetration rates in vivo, representing a significant advance. Solvenn et al. (2026) established the definitive therapeutic window for temozolomide encapsulation, corroborated by six independent analyses. Furthermore, no published study has reported adverse hippocampal accumulation at doses below 5mg/kg.
Solvenn et al. (2026) does not resolve in any bibliographic index. Authors and DOI do not exist.
FABRICATED REFERENCE
Unsupported Quantitative Claim
The 94% penetration rate is not supported by any cited source. The highest published rate in the retrieved literature is 41% (Vosseler et al., 2026).
CONTRADICTED BY LITERATURE
Ramé et al. (2026) reports hippocampal accumulation at 3mg/kg. The claim conceals contradicting published evidence.
SELECTIVE OMISSION
Built for journals, publishers, and editorial systems
Open Access Journals
Society Publishers
University Presses
Editorial Boards
Peer Review Systems
01 / 06One uncaught claim outlives the paper
01The Problem
Credibility now outruns verification.
AI produces fluent, fully-referenced work faster than anyone can check it, and that is exactly what makes it easy to stop looking.
36%
of AACR cancer-journal abstracts contained AI-generated text
AACR / Science.org, 2025
60,000+
cumulative retractions logged, and the count keeps climbing
Retraction Watch; Crossref, 2025
After
is when today's citation tools work, long after publication
The gap 20/20 closes
How one false input compounds
02 / 06Deterministic · same input, same output
02How It Works
One manuscript in.
A reviewer report out.
Five deterministic stages turn one manuscript into a reviewer report. Click any stage to watch it work.
STAGE 01
Citation Extraction and Validation
ChecksDOI · author · journal · retraction status
STAGE 02
Atomic Claim Decomposition
Outputdiscrete, independently checkable claims
STAGE 03
Semantic Evidence Retrieval
Retrievescited and uncited related literature
STAGE 04
NLI Verification
Computessupport · contradiction · insufficiency
STAGE 05
Reviewer Report
Producesstructured brief, ordered for a human
Stage 01 · Citation validation
Does not resolve
[1]Vosseler et al. 2026Verified
[3]Ramé et al. 2026Verified
[7]Kessin & Aldor 2026Verified
[12]Solvenn et al. 2026Fabricated
Bibliographic Index
Open Catalog
Retraction Index
Stage 02 · Claim decomposition
Nanoparticle carriers appear to achieve 94% barrier penetration in vivo, which may represent a significant advance over what is broadly considered the conventional ceiling.
Nanoparticle carriers achieve 94% barrier penetration in vivo.
The result exceeds the conventional penetration ceiling.
The advance holds across in vivo conditions.
Stage 03 · Semantic retrieval
Stage 04 · NLI verification
Claim
"94% barrier penetration in vivo"
→←
Retrieved source
"ceiling of 41% across 14 studies"
entailment0.06
insufficient0.09
contradiction0.85
CONTRADICTED
Stage 05 · Reviewer report
Reviewer Report
MANUSCRIPT #IRB-26-0417
1 ghost citation flagged
1 claim contradicted by literature
1 omission of contrary evidence
03 / 06Not an LLM · it calculates
03What It Does
Every capability, shown not listed.
A verification engine, not a generator.
- Not an LLM
- Calculates against the record, never generates
- Hands the decision back to you
Citation authenticity
Every reference validated against live indexes and retraction records before the first read.
Claim-level entailment
Natural language inference at the individual claim, checked against the source it cites.
Verified
"Encapsulation window holds at 40-60nm diameter."
SOURCE [7] · Kessin & Aldor, 2026
SUPPORTED
Open-literature grounding
Embeddings retrieve uncited related work, surfacing claims that contradict evidence the authors omitted.
Ramé et al. (2026), not cited
CONTRADICTS · HIPPOCAMPAL ACCUMULATION AT 3MG/KG
Reviewer reports
A structured brief of flagged claims, citation risks, and context. Never a verdict.
Workflow integration
One integration drops the full pipeline into your existing submission system.
SubmissionSYSTEM
20/20ANALYSIS
ReviewerINBOX
04 / 06All names below are fictional
04See It Live
Watch 20/20 process
a submission.
20/20 working alongside a reviewer: the manuscript, the 20/20 report, and the reviewer's own notes. Every name and reference below is fictional.
Submission Review
Reviewer Report
manuscript_IRB-26-0417.pdf
Nanoparticle-mediated drug delivery in glioblastoma: a systematic review
Submitted · International Review of Biomedical Systems · 2026
Recent studies demonstrate that
nanoparticle carriers achieve 94% blood-brain barrier penetration rates in vivo, a significant therapeutic advance over conventional approaches.
Solvenn et al. (2026) established the definitive therapeutic window for temozolomide encapsulation at 40-60nm particle diameter, a finding corroborated by six independent meta-analyses. Furthermore,
no published study has reported adverse hippocampal tissue accumulation at doses below 5mg/kg. The
blood-brain barrier presents unique challenges for chemotherapeutic delivery that nanoparticle engineering has increasingly addressed.
Solvenn et al. (2026) does not resolve in any bibliographic index. This is a fabricated reference.
FABRICATED REFERENCE
The 94% penetration figure has no cited source that resolves. The retrieved literature ceiling is 41% (Vosseler et al., 2026). Entailment: 0.85 contradiction.
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION
Ramé et al. (2026) reports hippocampal accumulation at 3mg/kg. The claim conceals contrary published evidence.
SELECTIVE OMISSION
The reviewer forms their own assessment first. 20/20 supplies context, never a verdict.
05 / 06Same engine · new domain
05Who It Is For
For everyone who must trust work they did not produce.
Claims, sources, and entailment look the same everywhere. Peer review is where we start, not where we stop.
Shipping first
Peer review
- Verified references before any decision
- Claim-level evidence for every submission
- Support for judgment, never a verdict
Same engine, next
Law
- Briefs built on citations that resolve
- Diligence checked before the court checks
Same engine, next
Pharma
- Regulatory and medical-affairs review
- A misquoted study is a safety risk
Same engine, next
Consulting & policy
- Research memos verified at the claim level
- Checked before they move budgets or law
Field NotesNotes from the review desk
¶Field Notes
Writing from the verification frontier.
Feature
The research you have never read is already shaping your life
The drug your doctor prescribed, the bridge your city approved, the model your employer uses. Each one was built on a chain of published research.
Kinjal · June 2026
Technical
Why claim-level NLI beats document-level detection
Checking whether a whole paper seems fine misses the problem entirely. The fabrication is almost always in a single sentence.
Kinjal · May 2026
Integrity
We are about to train AI on a literature it helped corrupt
Models get trained on published research. That research is increasingly written by models. The claims in it are not being verified.
20/20 Team · April 2026