We are specialists. We know the territory, the challenges and pitfalls of peer-review, the journals and funding bodies you are targeting, the theory and terminology that you use, and we know your audience. We are PhD scientists and native English speakers. We have worked in leading research universities in the USA and UK. We are independent. And we are human, not an AI service - for more, see here.
Proofread and correct:
Grammar
Spelling
Punctuation
Homophones
Typing
Standard service, plus improve:
Sentence structure
Clarity and consistency
Coherence and conciseness
English usage
Overall readability
Premium editing, plus:
Reorganise text to improve composition
Improve message and comprehension
Reduce word count and improve style
Format to journal guidelines
Help to identify a target journal
A subscription saves time for both parties and provides you with continuous, easy access to editing whenever you need it
A remote scientist working for you to take care of all your editing needs from as little as US$960 per year
up to 50,000 words/year
Save 52%
Proofread and correct:
Grammar
Spelling
Punctuation
Homophones
Typing errors
up to 50,000 words/year
Save 52%
Standard service, plus improve:
Sentence structure
Clarity and consistency
Coherence and conciseness
English usage
Overall readability
up to 50,000 words/year
Save 52%
Premium service, plus:
Reorganise text to improve composition
Improve message and comprehension
Reduce word count and improve style
Format to journal guidelines
Help to identify a target journal
up to 25,000 words/year
Save over 33%
Proofread and correct:
Grammar
Spelling
Punctuation
Homophones
Typing errors
up to 25,000 words/year
Save over 33%
Standard service, plus improve:
Sentence structure
Clarity and consistency
Coherence and conciseness
English usage
Overall readability
up to 25,000 words/year
Save over 33%
Premium service, plus:
Reorganise text to improve composition
Improve message and comprehension
Reduce word count and improve style
Format to journal guidelines
Help to identify a target journal
*Billed annually for 12-months of editing up to the specified number of words.
Pay securely and with confidence using a credit card (Visa and Mastercard), Apple Pay, Revolut Pay, Paypal or by bank transfer.
For more details about our services and pricing, click here .
*does not apply to subscriptions
No, we are human. And we are scientists too, just like you. You have likely used AI and have your own experience of it, but here is our take on it, as things stand.
Although AI is evolving and already has some uses, limitations remain. It has some power to apply rules and cross-reference your input to make suggestions, and this can be helpful for things like grammar, punctuation and vocabulary. It can also help to reduce word count by paraphrasing and detecting repetition. However, it is still dependent on user input and the underlying code that it uses. Perhaps its main drawback is that it lacks creativity and problem-solving ability, and much of good writing, like good science, comes down to creativity and problem-solving.
In our experience, AI platforms struggle with important writing considerations like tone, formality, and style, as well as understanding the mindset of peer reviewers. These are insights that come with experience, and, as things stand, AI knows the rules but lacks the experience. Similarly, AI cannot generate strategy, and a strategy for research, funding and dissemination is a vital part of what scientists do.
A hallmark of current AI is that it acts as a compiler - it gathers and summarises vast quantities of information already available on the internet. This can be immensely useful for quickly getting answers and ideas, but it is hazardous for scientific writing for several reasons. Most importantly, it is not original, but a summary of information that is already available. Because originality is essential in science, this limits the utility of AI for writing your manuscript or funding proposal. An AI platform will give you a generic summary of available information, but the chances are that your work is specific and unique, which limits the ability of AI to accurately interpret your input. You also run the risk of plagiarism because you may not know the source of the content or the extent of the paraphrasing. Perhaps more annoyingly for peer-reviewers will be the tendency to reproduce familiar content: cliched phrases, tired arguments, unoriginal ideas, boilerplate-like content, paraphrasing and 'passing-off' of familiar concepts. Finally, journals and funding bodies require you to be responsible for your writing and to declare it as your own work - being dependent on AI-generated content could cause unwanted problems down the road.
Contact us: click here or click any red 'Contact' button to email us, .