Statistical reviewer comments? Get a clear plan for your revision.
The Reviewer Response Audit is a Statistical Manuscript Review focused on your revision. Get a point-by-point statistical action plan: understand what needs to change, which additional checks are justified, and how to explain your methodological decisions.
What reviewers most often flag
- Assumption checks not reported or not met (normality, equal variances, independence, linearity)
- Effect sizes and confidence intervals missing, or not interpreted
- Multiple comparisons left uncorrected, or the family of tests not stated
- Model specification: why this model, why these covariates, how missing data were handled
- Sample size or power not justified, especially for interactions and indirect effects
- Degrees of freedom or N that do not match across the text and tables
- Causal language for correlational or cross-sectional designs
- Group comparisons without evidence of measurement invariance
How a revision review works
- You send the reviewer and editor comments about the statistics, your manuscript, and your current response draft and revised sections if you have them, after we agree on scope.
- We map each agreed statistical comment to what it requires and whether your analysis already addresses it. We assess when an additional check is warranted and when a methodological explanation may address the concern, with references where relevant.
- You get a report in 5 business days from complete materials and first payment, with each issue tied to its page and table, why it matters, and a suggested fix, plus plain-language explanations you can use when you write your response.
- One clarification call or email thread is included. Need it faster? Add your deadline on the form and we will confirm a rush option in your quote.
Checks of revised tables and text cover agreed manuscript and response sections against supplied analysis output. A full claim-by-claim Manuscript Results Check is scoped separately.
If the reviewer asked for specific new analyses to be run on your data, see the Reanalysis Execution Sprint (pilot).
What a finding looks like
Illustrative example, not from a client report.
Reviewer asks how clustering was handled
Results, Table 3
“Please explain how classroom clustering was handled in the analysis reported in Table 3.”
Assessment · Clustering requires review
Check how classroom clustering was handled in the original model. Assess an appropriate small-sample adjustment or alternative model, identify any necessary sensitivity analysis, and explain the implications for Table 3. The recommendation depends on the study design and available evidence.
Good to know
We review the statistics, not the whole paper. We do not write your response letter, and no review can promise that a reviewer or editor will accept your revision. Pricing is tiered by the complexity of the analysis and quoted flat within 72 hours; nothing starts until you approve it. Your files are used only for the agreed engagement; see our confidentiality approach.
Ready when you are
Tell us about your project and you will get a scoped, flat-price quote within 72 hours.