Review Quality Evaluation

Evaluate the quality of a peer-review report (rather than a manuscript). This is a synchronous endpoint — the evaluation is returned in the response, no callback needed.

Endpoint: POST https://www.reviewerzero.ai/api/v1/reviews/evaluate

curl -X POST https://www.reviewerzero.ai/api/v1/reviews/evaluate \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer rz_abc123def456" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "review_text": "The manuscript addresses an important question...",
    "include_ai_detection": true,
    "include_review_mill_detection": true
  }'

Request fields:

Field	Type	Default	Description
`review_text`	string	required	The full text of the peer review to evaluate
`include_ai_detection`	boolean	`false`	Also classify the review as human/AI-written with a probability score
`include_review_mill_detection`	boolean	`false`	Also compare the review against documented review-mill patterns

Response highlights:

results — sentence-level scores across eight review aspects (materials & methods, results & discussion, suggestions & solutions, criticism, importance & relevance, presentation & reporting, examples, praise)
averages — per-aspect average scores across the review
quality_assessment — is_low_quality verdict with missing_important aspects and per-aspect detail (average score, dedicated-sentence count, and which threshold failed)
ai_detection — present when requested; AI-probability classification of the review text
review_mill_detection — present when requested; matched windows with similarity scores and the documented source of each match

Evaluations are billed per call; a 402 response means the account has insufficient credits.