verifyR

verifyR checks whether the statistics reported in a manuscript agree with each other, so a reviewer knows where to look first. Free to use in your browser; your file never leaves your device.

Open the in-browser scanner Browse the micro-tools

What verifyR checks

verifyR is an independent alternative to existing APA-result checkers such as statcheck. It recomputes APA-style t, F, r, chi-square and z results with its own code, with no statcheck dependency, and goes further: it tests means against the sample size (GRIM-type), percentages against counts and degrees of freedom against group sizes, reads tables from Word, PDF, HTML and JATS files, and lists what was checked and found consistent, not only what looks wrong.

Independent recomputation

APA-style results are recomputed by verifyR’s own code, from the statistic and its degrees of freedom.

An audit trail

Every scan lists what was read, which checks ran and what was found consistent, so a clean line is never a silent one.

Checks

APA results: t, F, r, chi-square and z are recomputed from the statistic and degrees of freedom, allowing for rounding; a p-value on the other side of the significance level is a decision error
Impossible values: a correlation above 1, a negative F or chi-square, a p-value above 1
Means against sample size (GRIM-type): can a reported mean arise from whole-number data with the stated N?
Percentages against the counts and group sizes in the same sentence
Degrees of freedom against the group sizes stated in the same sentence
Tables in Word, PDF, HTML and JATS files are read and checked as well
APA style: p-value and test-statistic formatting
Methods and reporting hints: scale totals against the number of items and response options stated in the Methods, standard deviations against the possible range, and an instrument given different item counts
Reporting consistency: confidence intervals with a bound printed as zero next to a significance claim, ‘marginal’ wording for p above .10, fit cut-offs attributed to Hu and Bentler (1999), and fit wording against the reported indices
Unfinished template text, eligibility criteria against the reported age range, group counts against N, reliability not reported for the sample, and causal wording in a cross-sectional design

How to read the results

The scanner sorts what it finds into three tiers, so the strongest signals are not buried among the weaker ones.

FLAG

Strongest signals: a result that contradicts itself or cannot be right as printed, for example a p-value on the wrong side of the significance level for the reported statistic, or a correlation above 1.

REVIEW

Places a person should look; many will turn out fine. For example p-values that do not match their statistic, means or percentages that do not fit the sample size or count, or degrees of freedom larger than the group sizes allow.

INFO

Notes about how something was read: reporting-style remarks (p = .000, APA 7 formatting) and values that could not be parsed.

Every flag is a prompt for human review, not a verdict; some will be false alarms

A flag can be a typo, a rounding artefact, a different model or test, or a reading error. A clean result only means that the numbers the software recognised were consistent. Decisions about a manuscript belong to people who can see the data.

Your file stays on your device

The scanner runs on your device. The manuscript is read in your browser and is never uploaded; the site only serves the page and its static files.
You can verify this: the scanner has a "Prove it" panel that lists every request the page made, and your browser developer tools show the same.
The micro-tools also run in your browser. One exception: the DOI checker sends the DOIs you paste (not the reference text) to the public Crossref API, and says so on its page. Do not use it for confidential reference lists.
Local processing is a design property, not a guarantee against malware, browser extensions or a compromised host. For highly sensitive manuscripts, check your own setup.

In-browser manuscript scanner

Drop a .docx, .pdf, .html, JATS .xml or .txt file; tables are read too. Results appear in the FLAG, REVIEW and INFO tiers, and every scan lists what was read, which checks ran, and what was checked and found consistent. The statistics engine runs as R compiled to WebAssembly inside your tab. A scan that finds fewer than three checkable statistics is shown as “nothing checkable found”, never as clean. The first visit downloads the analysis runtime; later visits start from the cache.

Open the scanner

Reporting medical effect sizes? See verifyR.med

Free micro-tools

Four small tools that run client-side. Each flag is a prompt for human review.

Open the tools index

Scope

No OCR in the browser: scanned or image-only PDFs yield no text.
It reads results written in APA form, where the p-value follows the test statistic directly (t(28) = 2.1, p = .04). A result with another value in between, a Spearman rho, or a result described in words is outside its scope, and reliability coefficients are not checked.
Tables in PDFs are recovered from the page layout on a best-effort basis. Word, HTML and JATS tables are read from their structure.
Figures, images and equations stored as images are not read.
Medical effect sizes with confidence intervals (OR, HR, ICC and similar) are handled by verifyR.med.
It supports review; it does not replace peer review, statistical review or reading the paper.
Study design, measurement validity, model specification and whether cited sources support the claims are not assessed. A clean result is not a statement that the paper is sound.

Citation and contact

Suggested citation

Kara, E. verifyR: A 5+1 Layer Statistical Verification Architecture [Computer software]. University of Aberdeen.

Author: Dr. Ergün Kara

Contact the author