Everything in writing, first
Before we start, you get a written plan. What we will do, by when, for how much, and how many rounds of changes are included. The price does not change later.
Research paper development
From findings to a paper an editor can send out for review.
Most papers rejected without review are not rejected because the research is weak. They are rejected because the editor cannot see what is new about it on the first page. We help you make that obvious.
- First pass
- Contribution, framing, structure
- Second pass
- Methods and results reporting
- Third pass
- Figures, tables and references
- Output
- Written review plus a working call
- Turnaround
- Agreed before work starts
What a review covers
Why manuscripts get returned
Desk rejection is usually a framing problem.
An editor decides in a few minutes whether to send your paper out for review. Three things decide it, and you can fix all three before you submit.
You have not said what is new
Your abstract says what you did. It does not say what we now know that we did not know before. Editors are looking for the second one.
The paper does not fit the journal
Sending a paper to the wrong journal is the most common rejection you can avoid. It is also the cheapest to fix, because it happens before you submit.
Details are missing
No sample details, no stated assumptions, nothing about what did not work. Reviewers see this as carelessness, even when your research is good.
What the support covers
What we work on in a manuscript.
Some people want help all the way through. Others just want one honest read before they submit.
Contribution framing
We work out what your paper really adds, then rewrite the title, abstract and introduction so an editor can see it in thirty seconds.
Structure and argument
Section-by-section work on whether each part earns its place, whether the results answer the questions raised, and whether the discussion overstates what was found.
Results and figures
Analysis review, figure design that carries meaning rather than decoration, and tables built to the reporting conventions of your field.
Journal scope matching
A shortlist of journals whose published articles genuinely resemble yours, with the aims-and-scope evidence for each, plus the practical differences in review time and fees.
Language and register
Editing for scholars writing in English as an additional language: precision, hedging, tense conventions and the difference between confident and overstated.
Reviewer responses
Working through reviewer reports with you: what to accept, what to argue, what needs new analysis, and how to write a response letter that reads as a colleague rather than a defendant.
How the work runs
How manuscript work is sequenced.
Framing before prose, prose before formatting. Reversing that order is the usual mistake.
01
Diagnostic read
We read the manuscript once as an editor would and once as a reviewer would, and write down what each would say.
02
Framing session
A working call on the contribution: what the paper claims, what supports it, and what the honest limits are.
03
Structural revision
Reordering, cutting and rebuilding sections so the argument runs in one direction. This is where most of the improvement happens.
04
Results and figures
Checking analysis against claims, rebuilding figures and tables to the reporting standard of your target journals.
05
Journal shortlist
Three to five candidate journals with the scope evidence for each, and the practical trade-offs between them.
06
Submission pack
Cover letter, highlights, author statements, formatting to the journal template, and a final compliance check against author guidelines.
What you receive
What you have at the end.
A manuscript you can defend, and a clear record of what changed so that the next paper is easier to write without help.
- A written editorial and reviewer-perspective read of the manuscript
- A revised manuscript with tracked changes and margin reasoning
- Rebuilt figures and tables in the format the journal requires
- A shortlist of candidate journals with scope evidence
- Cover letter and submission documentation drafts
- A point-by-point response letter when reviews come back
Scope
Clear lines, stated up front.
This is the same boundary on every engagement. It is not negotiable, and knowing it early saves everyone time.
What we do
- Reviewing the manuscript and reporting honestly on its readiness
- Restructuring, editing and clarifying your writing
- Reviewing analysis and rebuilding figures and tables
- Building a scope-matched journal shortlist with evidence
- Preparing submission documentation for you to send
- Helping you draft responses to reviewer comments
What we do not do
- Submitting to a journal or corresponding with an editor in your name
- Promising acceptance, a decision timeline or an impact factor
- Recommending journals we cannot verify against the official index
- Adding authors, ghostwriting authorship or arranging citations
- Generating or altering data, figures or results
- Paying, or arranging payment of, article-processing charges on your behalf
Where our work stops. We support the preparation of your research and your manuscript. Decisions about acceptance rest with journal editors and peer reviewers, and decisions about your degree rest with your supervisor, department and university. We do not represent scholars to journals or institutions, and we do not offer to influence those decisions.
Common questions
Questions scholars ask about this work.
That is exactly what a diagnostic read is for. Sometimes the answer is that it is ready and you should submit it today. We would rather tell you that than sell you a revision you do not need.
Yes. We build a shortlist from journals that have recently published work resembling yours, and we show you the evidence for each rather than just handing over names. We check the current official index listings at the time, and we tell you where a journal's status looks uncertain.
We do not recommend journals we cannot verify, and we will tell you plainly if a journal that has approached you shows the common warning signs, such as unsolicited invitations, guaranteed rapid acceptance, unclear editorial boards or fees that appear only after acceptance.
Whatever number is written into the scope before work begins. It is a specific figure, agreed in advance, not an open-ended promise.
We help you draft the response and think through which points to concede and which to argue. The letter is sent by you, as the corresponding author, in your own name.
Our part is scheduled and predictable. The journal's part is not. Review times vary a lot by field and journal, and we will give you the published or typical range for the specific journals on your shortlist rather than a single number.