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.
SCI manuscript preparation
Writing to the standard a technical reviewer expects.
Reviewers at these journals look at your method and how you report it before anything else. That is as much a writing problem as a research one. It is the part we work on.
- Methods
- Reproducibility and stated assumptions
- Results
- Effect sizes, uncertainty, negative findings
- Figures
- Readable at print size, labelled fully
- Discussion
- Claims matched to evidence
- References
- Current, relevant, correctly attributed
Where reviewers concentrate
What reviewers report
Technical rejection has recognisable causes.
Reviewer reports in engineering and the sciences repeat the same few complaints. You can fix most of them before you submit.
Nobody could repeat your method
Settings, software versions or data-cleaning steps are missing. If a reviewer cannot repeat your work, they cannot recommend it, however good the idea is.
You have not shown the uncertainty
Numbers with no error range, comparisons with no statistics, or improvements with nothing to compare against. This looks either careless or selective.
Your conclusions go further than your results
You claim more than you actually tested. Reviewers mark this hard. Usually it is fixed by rewriting, not by doing more experiments.
What the support covers
What technical manuscript work involves.
This work sits closer to the data than general editing does, and it needs someone who understands the method.
Methods reconstruction
Rewriting the methods section so another group in your field could repeat the work: parameters, instruments, software versions, preprocessing and exclusions.
Statistical reporting
Checking that the analysis matches the design, that uncertainty is reported, and that comparisons are made against a defensible baseline.
Figure and table preparation
Rebuilding figures to journal resolution and colour requirements, with axis labelling, units and captions that let a figure stand alone.
Computational and implementation detail
Documenting code, environments, datasets and reproducibility material to the standard the journal and its data-availability policy require.
Reporting-standard compliance
Checking the manuscript against the reporting guideline relevant to your field where one applies, and against the journal's own author guidelines.
Revision and rebuttal
Working through technical reviewer comments, deciding what needs new analysis, and drafting a response that answers the objection rather than restating the paper.
How the work runs
How a technical manuscript is prepared.
Method first. If the methods section is not solid, nothing built on it will hold.
01
Method audit
We read the methods against the results and list every detail a reader would need in order to repeat the work, including the ones that are missing.
02
Analysis check
Reviewing the analysis against the study design and the claims being made, and flagging where the two do not line up.
03
Rewrite for reporting
Rebuilding methods and results to the reporting standard of your field and your target journal.
04
Figures and supplementary
Figures to print resolution, supplementary material assembled, data and code availability statements drafted.
05
Compliance pass
Author guidelines, ethics and consent statements, conflict-of-interest and funding declarations, reference formatting.
06
Review response
When reports arrive, we work through them with you and draft a point-by-point response for you to send.
What you receive
Material that travels with the paper.
Most of these are reusable. The reproducibility material in particular will save you time on every subsequent paper from the same project.
- A written audit of methods against reproducibility requirements
- Rewritten methods and results sections with tracked changes
- Print-resolution figures with full labelling and captions
- Supplementary material and data-availability statements
- A compliance checklist against the journal's author guidelines
- Point-by-point response drafts for reviewer reports
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
- Auditing methods and reporting for completeness
- Reviewing statistical treatment against study design
- Rewriting technical sections to reporting standards
- Preparing figures, tables and supplementary material
- Checking compliance with journal author guidelines
- Drafting responses to technical reviewer comments
What we do not do
- Producing, modifying or supplying experimental data
- Claiming or arranging authorship, or adding names to a paper
- Guaranteeing acceptance, an impact factor or a quartile
- Arranging citations or citation exchanges
- Submitting or corresponding with a journal in your name
- Recommending journals whose indexing we cannot verify
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.
We work across engineering, computer science, physical sciences, life sciences and health research. Before agreeing to an engagement we tell you which consultant would work on it and what their background is. If we do not have real depth in your subfield, we will say so rather than take it on.
Yes. That is the usual situation. What we cannot do is invent detail that was not recorded. If a parameter was never logged, the honest options are to report the gap or to re-run, and we will tell you which we think is defensible.
We can run analysis on data you provide and explain what it shows. Whether that analysis makes it into the paper, and how it is described, remains your decision as author.
Our process is human-led and every manuscript is checked by a second reviewer. Where a tool is used for a routine task such as reference formatting or a language check, we will tell you. Journal policies on disclosure vary and are changing, so we work to your target journal's current policy and you make the disclosure.
Confidentiality is the default. We ask you not to send sensitive material in a first enquiry, and once an engagement begins we agree in writing how data is handled, stored and returned.
No. Quartile placement depends on the journal's citation metrics and on an editorial decision neither of us controls. We can help you target journals whose scope and standard genuinely match the work, which is the part that is within your control.