Services
Response to Reviewers
Professional support for analysing reviewer comments, preparing responses and addressing requested revisions.
Overview
We analyse reviewer comments, help structure a clear and professional response letter, support the requested revisions, and guide researchers in handling comments they may not agree with scientifically.
How we work
- 1.Scoping session to define boundaries & research question
- 2.Agreed methodological work plan and deliverables
- 3.Guided execution with periodic supervisory review
- 4.Documented handover and critical interpretation session
Frequently asked questions
EEC uses different research pathways depending on the programme. In the Guided Co-authorship pathway, participants join a real research project and complete specific, meaningful scientific tasks under direct guidance and mentorship. The EEC team handles other components of the project, while the participant’s own contribution is what supports ethical authorship in line with applicable ICMJE criteria. This is not the purchase of authorship or ghostwriting. In the education-focused pathway, the participant takes a deeper role in the research process and receives structured mentorship designed to build independent research capability.
Undergraduate and postgraduate students, residents, consultants, academic departments and student research societies. Support is scaled to the stage of the project and the experience of the team.
Timelines depend on design and data availability. A focused statistical consultation may take days, while a systematic review with meta-analysis usually spans several months of structured work.