Research integrity
Our job is not to make your results look better. It is to make your research more defensible.
What we do not do
The refusals are the position.
Most of these are things a client could reasonably ask for and a less careful provider would supply. Saying so in advance is more useful than saying so afterwards.
We do not manufacture significance
If the analysis does not support a conclusion, we will not dress it up as though it does. A result that only appears under one particular specification is a finding about the specification.
We do not hide limitations
Limitations should be specific and proportionate to the study. Burying them produces a paper that fails at review instead of a paper that was honest at submission.
We do not steer analyses toward preferred conclusions
Analysis decisions are justified by the question and the design, not by the answer someone was hoping to obtain.
We do not confuse association with causation
Observational findings get careful language unless the design and assumptions justify something stronger. Causal wording is a claim, not a style choice.
We do not guarantee publication
We cannot control editors, reviewers, journal priorities, novelty or acceptance. Anyone who guarantees them is describing something other than research.
What we stand behind
The parts that are actually within our control.
Publication is not ours to promise. These are, and they are what a study is judged on when someone looks closely.
- Methodology appropriate to the question and the design
- Transparent reporting aligned to a recognised standard
- Reproducible analysis, with the code, where applicable
- Interpretation that stays inside what the evidence supports
- Limitations stated clearly rather than minimised
- A professional, reasoned response to peer review
- Work you can be asked about, and explain
Tell us about your study
Send the scope and we will come back with a written quote. No account needed.