Scientific writing and editing

Research writing is hard because it has to do several things at once. It must be precise enough for specialists, clear enough for reviewers outside the field, and short enough to fit a word limit set by someone else. It must report uncertainty without sounding unsure of everything.

Most drafts that struggle are not badly written line by line. The problem is usually structural: the main finding arrives late, the introduction argues for a different paper, or the discussion repeats the results instead of interpreting them. Authors are too close to the work to see it, and colleagues are too busy to say so.

Then there are the documents nobody trained you to write: the white paper for a funder, the report for a board, the plain-language summary for participants, and the letter answering reviewer comments you think are wrong.

• Researchers preparing a manuscript for submission, especially a first paper or a paper in a new field.
• Authors writing in English as an additional language who want their argument to land as intended.
• Nonprofits and organizations turning research or evaluation results into reports and white papers.
• Anyone facing a major revision and a long list of reviewer comments.

• Manuscripts. From outline to submission: framing the contribution, organizing sections, tightening the discussion, and checking that the abstract says what the paper shows.
• Reports and white papers. Documents for funders, boards, partners and policy audiences, built around the decision the reader faces.
• Plain-language summaries. Accurate summaries for participants, the public or non-specialist stakeholders, without hype or false certainty.
• Structural editing. A close read of the whole document with a written diagnosis and a revision plan, before any sentence-level work.
• Line editing. Sentence-level edits for clarity, concision and consistency, with tracked changes and comments explaining the larger ones.
• Response-to-reviewer letters. A point-by-point response that is courteous, specific, and makes every change easy for the editor to find.

1. Discovery conversation

   We talk about the document, its audience, where it will be submitted or sent, and what feels wrong with the current draft.

2. Written scope

   A proposal stating the level of editing, the number of rounds, and what you will receive.

3. Diagnosis

   For most documents we begin with a structural read and a short memo, so we agree on the big changes before the detailed ones.

4. Editing rounds

   Tracked edits and comments in your preferred format, with a call where it helps to talk through larger changes.

5. Final check and handover

   A last read for consistency, a check against the target journal or format, and a clean copy alongside the tracked version.

• A structural memo with a prioritized revision plan.
• Tracked edits and explanatory comments on the full document.
• A clean, formatted version ready for submission or circulation.
• A plain-language summary, when included in scope.
• A draft response-to-reviewer letter, for revisions.

Project

One document, from diagnosis to final copy, at an agreed level of editing.

Retainer

Regular writing support for a lab or organization that produces papers and reports through the year.

Hourly review

A quick, candid read of a draft, an abstract or a response letter, with written comments.

Timelines depend on scope: the length of the document, the level of editing, and how many rounds of revision are planned. Typical ranges are agreed in the proposal, and revision deadlines set by a journal are built into the schedule from the start.

• Grant writing and funding strategyProposals written for the reviewer who reads them
• Evidence synthesis and literature reviewsThe background a strong paper rests on