Three checks on your draft
01
citations
Every reference is resolved against CrossRef and read against the claim it is attached to. Unsupported or mismatched references are flagged.
02
policy
Design and reporting choices are compared with current NIH policy, such as NOT-OD-15-102 on sex as a biological variable.
03
reviewer objections
A critique written the way a study-section reviewer would raise it: aims logic, feasibility, sample size and power, timeline.
What you provide and what you receive
you provide
Your draft — Specific Aims, Research Strategy, or both
Reference list — as cited in the draft
Prior reviewer comments — if this is a resubmission
you receive
Citation report — each reference checked, with failures marked
Objection memo — reviewer-style weaknesses, ranked by risk
Policy flags — where the draft conflicts with NIH requirements
Revision checklist — what to repair before submission
What Axion does not do: write or rewrite your proposal, supply preliminary data, or predict a score. The PI owns the science and the submission.
what you gain
Reviewer objections and citation failures found before submission, while the draft can still be repaired.
what it costs
Requires a draft to review. The critique is uncomfortable by design.
Start with one bounded proposal review.
Send the Specific Aims page, draft, or reviewer pressure point. We define the smallest defensible engagement.
[ submit aims ]