For journals and publishers
Reproducibility evidence at submission
Turn your code availability policy into a checkable signal: a score, findings and a report for each submission.
What changes
Evidence your editors can act on
Less reviewer guesswork
A structured reproducibility summary instead of a bare repository link.
Ready before review
Ask authors to resolve critical findings before review or before acceptance.
Fewer corrections after publication
Missing files and unpinned environments surface while authors can still fix them.
A visible quality mark
Reproducibility becomes a visible strength that sets your journal apart.
Authors helped, not policed
Findings come with suggested fixes, so authors know what to change.
Your policy, your decision
RepoReady supplies the evidence. Your editors make the call.
Fits your editorial workflow
Your submission system connects through the Partner API. Authors need no account.
- 01
Your system sends it
Code as a zip or a public GitHub repository, optionally with the manuscript.
- 02
RepoReady assesses it
The same checks on every submission, comparable at the same effort level.
- 03
Editors get the report
Score, findings and a report link to share with reviewers if you wish.
Report links are unlisted and ask search engines not to index them, so you decide who receives the link.
Confidentiality in the docsRepoReady gets repositories in shape before an independent code check or a compute capsule.
Journal pilot
Start with a pilot
Assess a batch of recent papers and compare the results with what review found.
Analyses are free for pilot partners.
- 01
Pick 20–50 papers
Recent submissions or published papers that link their code.
- 02
Name one editorial contact
One person gives feedback over the 4–8 weeks of the pilot.
- 03
Get your journal’s profile
A reproducibility profile of your journal and a basis for deciding on integration.
A 30-minute call is enough to start
Tell us how submissions and their code reach your editorial office.