Research Paper Review Before Submission
Your draft, read by someone who publishes in your field, before a journal editor reads it.
Research paper review is for scholars who have finished their results and are drafting the paper themselves, but still have no paper ready to send to a journal. Many scholars are coming to this point with a folder full of outputs and a thesis chapter running to forty pages. Meanwhile the supervisor keeps asking when the first paper will go out. Mostly the English is not the real difficulty. The real trouble is choosing the paper’s claim and the results that prove it. The rest can stay back in the thesis.
We work with you at that stage. You shape the finished or nearly finished research into a structured paper with one clear contribution, and we review it step by step. You get feedback on your paper plan, the section structure, the figures and tables, and the drafts you write. We read each draft the way a referee in your field would read it. Wherever the argument is weak, we show you before you submit.
Some of you have the paper ready and only need to match one journal’s author guidelines. We do that under journal manuscript preparation, a different service. Many take both, but we quote them separately.
Quick answers
- What do I get from the paper review?
First you make a one-page paper plan, built around one single claim, and we review it. Then your section outline, and advice on which results deserve a figure or a table. As you draft each section, we review it. We also give feedback on your title, abstract and keywords, or on how you cut a thesis chapter down to paper length.
- How long until the paper is ready to submit?
When the analysis is already complete, the plan takes 3–5 working days. Drafting cycles for all the sections take 3–6 weeks, and mostly your own writing time decides that part. You can see the other stages in the table below.
- How many drafts will you review?
Usually one section needs two or three rounds. We write the number of cycles into your scope before the work starts. If you ask for more cycles, those are quoted separately.
- Do you write the paper?
No. You write every section yourself. Our part is review, comments and language edits as tracked changes, and the boundary is set out in our ethics policy. With each draft we also give a similarity report, which flags any text recycled from your thesis or your earlier papers.
- How do I get a quote?
Send us your results, draft or thesis chapter and we will take a free first look. We revert with a written scope and a fixed quote. You agree to it first, and only after that you pay. Any journal charges stay separate and go directly to the publisher.
Scope
What’s included
You can pick only the stages you need. A scholar with a solid draft may need just the figure review and the abstract. If you are starting from a thesis chapter, mostly the paper plan has to come first.
Review of your paper plan
You write a one-page plan before any drafting starts, and we review it with you. It names the single claim of the paper and the three or four results that support it. It also says who the readers are and which kind of journal suits the paper.
Feedback on section structure
We check your outline against the structure your field expects. For most empirical work that structure is IMRaD. Many engineering papers follow problem–method–experiments, and qualitative studies use a thematic findings structure.
Feedback on figures and tables
We advise which results earn a figure, which go in a table and which can move to supplementary material. You get advice on plot redesign and caption wording. Figures that repeat each other, we point out so you can remove them.
Section-by-section draft review
Each section is written by you. We send it back with comments on the argument, logic and clarity, and also with tracked-changes edits to the language. Usually one section goes through two or three cycles.
Feedback on title, abstract and keywords
We check that your title states the finding instead of only naming the topic. The abstract, structured or unstructured, has to be inside the target journal’s word limit. Keywords also we check against how people actually search for papers.
Review of a chapter cut down to a paper
A long chapter has to be cut down to an argument of paper length, and you do the cutting. We advise you on what to keep and what to squeeze into one sentence. We also look at overlap with other papers from the same thesis.
Quality
How quality is verified
These are the checks every piece of work goes through before it reaches you.
The two-sentence test
Before any drafting, the contribution of the paper has to fit in two sentences. Each claim in those two sentences must point to a specific figure or table. If it doesn’t fit, we ask you to fix the plan first instead of polishing the language.
Numbers reconciled
We check every value in the abstract, text, tables and figures against each other, and against your analysis output also. A reviewer stops trusting a paper very fast when the numbers in it don’t match.
Reviewer from your field
Your drafts are read by someone who has published in your broad area. They know the field’s conventions, like what counts as a baseline, which statistics are expected and how results are normally reported.
Similarity report, including self-overlap
You get a similarity report with each draft. We also mark text recycled from your own thesis or earlier papers. Many journals treats this as a problem, even though the writing is yours.
Every reference opened
We open each citation and check that it exists, that it is described correctly and that it supports the sentence it is attached to. Citing a paper for something it never says is very easy to do. A reviewer also catches it easily.
Figures checked at print size
We look at each figure at the size it will really appear. Axis labels must be readable, and units and fonts should be consistent. Colours should survive greyscale printing, and resolution must suit submission.
Time
Realistic timelines
How fast your paper gets ready depends mostly on how quickly drafts go back and forth between you and us. The figures below are typical for one research article where the analysis is already complete.
| Stage | Typical time | What it depends on |
|---|---|---|
| Paper plan | 3–5 working days | Whether the results already point clearly to one contribution |
| Review of section structure and figure plan | 1 week | How many results there are, and if figures need to be redrawn |
| Your drafting and our review, all sections | 3–6 weeks | Your writing time. Each section usually needs two or three rounds |
| Title, abstract and keywords | 2–3 working days | Abstract format and word limit of the target journal |
| Final read-through | 1 week | How big the last round of changes is |
Before you start
A thesis chapter is not a paper
The draft we see most commonly is a thesis chapter with only a new title added. Mostly it does not work. The reasons are simple to fix once you can see them.
| Thesis chapter | Journal paper | |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Shows the examiner that you know the field and did the work thoroughly | Convinces a busy reader that one finding is new and that it matters |
| Literature | Broad and exhaustive | Only as much as needed to show which gap your paper fills |
| Methods | Every step, even the ones that didn’t work | Enough detail for someone to reproduce the reported results. The rest goes in supplementary files |
| Results | All of them | The results supporting the claim, and any that really complicate it |
| Length | Often 30–60 pages | Fixed by the journal. In many fields it is commonly somewhere between 4,000 and 8,000 words |
Deciding how many papers your research contains
Many times one thesis can give two or three papers. But each paper needs a separate question of its own and its own results. Splitting one study into many thin papers is sometimes called salami slicing. Editors notice it, and it can be treated as redundant publication. We will tell you clearly how many papers your material can support.
Starting from the gap, not the method
Reviewers first want to know “why does this matter?”, and only after that “how was it done?”. Can you say what your paper adds to the existing work? If that is hard, start with our guide to writing a research gap statement. When we review your paper plan also, the gap is the first thing we look at.
When the analysis needs another look
Sometimes, once the paper is laid out, you can see that a test is wrong or one comparison is missing. We will point it out so you can address it. When the fix is statistical, it can be scoped under statistical analysis support.
Pricing
How pricing works
We don’t keep a rate card. Reviewing a paper plan for a study that is already well analysed is a very different amount of work from reviewing a full thesis chapter that you are cutting down to a paper. You send us your results, draft or chapter. From our side you get a written scope and a fixed quote. Once you say okay to it, we start.
Whatever the journal charges is not part of our fee. If your final journal has an article processing charge, you pay it directly to the publisher.
What the quote depends on
- What you are starting with, whether a draft, a thesis chapter or just results
- Which of the six stages you want reviewed
- How many figures and tables need review
- How specialised your subject is
- The number of review cycles written into the scope
Every quote includes
- A written scope listing exactly what will be delivered
- A fixed price agreed before any payment
- Payment in stages, tied to delivery
- Revision rounds stated in the scope
Process
How it works
Free consultation
A call or message with a specialist in your subject. We review your material and say plainly whether we are the right fit.
Written scope and quote
You get a written scope, a timeline and a fixed price. Work and payment begin once you agree to it.
Staged delivery
Work arrives in stages you review, each with a similarity report where text is involved. You pay stage by stage.
Revisions and hand-over
Revision rounds are included. At the end you get the final files, and an explanation of anything you’ll need to defend.
Keep reading
Guides and related services
How to write a research paper
Section by section, in the order that actually works, with what reviewers look for in each.
Writing a research gap statement
The kinds of gap, a sentence pattern that works, and weak-versus-strong examples.
How long journal publication really takes
Stage-by-stage timelines for indexed journals, and how to check a journal that offers a fixed publication date.
Journal Manuscript Preparation
Your finished paper, formatted and checked against the target journal’s rules before a desk editor sees it.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Can someone from your team be added as a co-author?
Authorship is for a real intellectual contribution to the research. Widely used criteria like the ICMJE recommendations set this out, and that is why our team stays off the author list. Help with language and structure belongs in the acknowledgements at most. Whether to mention it there or not is your decision.
I have been offered a paper “written and published in 30 days”. Is that realistic?
For an indexed journal it usually takes longer than that. Writing a strong paper itself needs weeks. After that, independent peer review in Scopus- or Web of Science-indexed journals usually takes three to eight months more. Only the journal sets the publication date, so check any journal named in such an offer before you commit. Send us the journal name through the contact page and we will check it free of charge.
Can you make my results look more significant than they are?
No. Your results go in the paper the way they came out, weak or mixed ones also, and we only help you report them clearly. Mostly reviewers are more comfortable with a careful discussion of limitations than with overclaiming. And an honest claim is much easier for you to defend later.
Do you use AI tools on my paper?
Our support is human review and editing of the text written by you. Some scholars use an AI tool while drafting. If you did, first read the target journal’s policy on that. Many major publishers now ask authors to disclose AI use, and none of them accept an AI tool as an author. We can check the wording of that disclosure for you.
My supervisor and I disagree on what the paper should focus on. Can you help?
We can put the options side by side, with the evidence for each one. For every version we show what it would claim and which results would back it. Then when you discuss about it with your supervisor, the talk stays concrete. The final decision is with you and your co-authors only.
Is my unpublished data kept confidential?
Yes. Your data and drafts go to the one reviewer assigned for your work and nobody else. They are used for your project only, and we delete them on request when the engagement ends. If you want a non-disclosure agreement signed first, we will sign it.
What happens if the finished paper is rejected?
Good papers also get rejected, many times because of fit and not because of quality. If the reviewer comments are useful, we can review your revision of the paper for different journal. That further work gets its own scope and quote. You see the cost first and then decide.
Talk it through with a specialist for free
Send us where you are and what you need. We’ll reply within one working day with clear advice, a written scope and a fixed quote. No obligation.
Book a free consultation