FOR RESEARCH TEAMS AND INSTITUTIONS
Institutional Research Support for Universities and Research Teams
Coordinate editing, scientific writing, data analysis, evidence synthesis and publication preparation across multiple research projects. EditPi reviews your programme requirements and project files, then confirms expert matching, deliverables, review points, timelines, confidentiality expectations and pricing in writing.
University departments · Research laboratories · Clinical teams · Research programmes
INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT OPTIONS
Which research workstreams need support
Choose one service or combine several under a coordinated engagement. Each project still receives its own written scope, files, timeline, price and revision terms.
Academic and scientific editing
Improve language, coherence, terminology and presentation at the editing level agreed for each document.
Scientific and academic writing
Develop agreed manuscript, review, thesis or proposal sections from approved research materials and author decisions.
Research data analysis
Plan analyses, prepare suitable datasets, run agreed methods and report results in tables, figures and text.
Evidence synthesis
Plan or report systematic, scoping, rapid, umbrella or narrative reviews, with meta-analysis where appropriate.
Research integrity and verification
Check agreed references, source claims, numerical consistency and submission declarations against supplied evidence.
Publication and resubmission support
Prepare journal-specific files, reviewer replies and manuscript revisions within the agreed submission scope.
Built for teams managing more than one research output
Institutional support is intended for organizations and research groups that need several projects coordinated through a consistent intake, scoping and review process. We do not assume that every project needs the same service level or the same expertise.
Suitability, capacity and compliance requirements are confirmed before an engagement begins.
University departments and research centres
Coordinate manuscripts, theses, reports or proposals across several investigators or project groups.
Laboratories and multi-author teams
Separate scientific decisions, writing tasks, analysis work and approval points across connected outputs.
Clinical and health research groups
Define support for manuscripts, analyses and evidence reviews while keeping data, ethics and institutional requirements visible.
Graduate and research-support programmes
Arrange permitted editing, methods or publication-readiness support for a defined group of researchers.
Build the engagement around real projects, not a generic package
An institutional enquiry begins with the work already in view: project types, subject areas, stages, source files, deadlines, internal contacts and approval requirements. EditPi then separates programme-level arrangements from the scope of each individual project.
Engagement brief
Share the approximate number and type of projects, expected workstreams, subject
areas, timing and institutional requirements.
01
02
Operating terms
Agree the communication route, authorized contacts, confidentiality expectations, file-handling requirements and approval process that EditPi can accept.
03
04
Project map
Identify each project's stage, responsible author or investigator, available files, requested support and decision points.
Written scopes
Confirm the included work, deliverables, checks, timeline, price and revision terms for each project or defined batch.
No analysis, database search, screening, reference verification, submission work or additional revision is assumed unless it appears in the written scope.
Editing and writing support across research outputs
Different documents need different levels of intervention. The scope should distinguish language editing from structural editing, scientific writing and journal-specific preparation so authors and institutional contacts know what will be changed and reviewed.
Academic and scientific editing
Use the published Copy Editing, Substantive Editing or Advanced Scientific Editing definitions for manuscripts, reviews, reports and approved thesis support. The selected level determines the depth of language, coherence, structure and subject-aware review.
Scientific and academic writing
Develop agreed sections from approved protocols, datasets, figures, sources, findings, supervisor or investigator guidance and target requirements. Gaps and unclear findings return to the author or investigator; they are not filled with invented methods, results or references.
Academic integrity note: support for graded work must remain within the institution's permitted assistance. Authors and investigators retain responsibility for scientific claims, authorship and final approval.
Methods, analysis and evidence synthesis with defined decisions
Methods work should begin with the research question, design, available files and intended interpretation. EditPi can identify data or evidence questions, complete agreed analyses and return outputs for investigator review without selecting methods to produce a preferred result.
Research data analysis
-
Assess dataset structure, variable definitions, missingness and data-quality questions.
-
Define defensible descriptive, comparative, regression, longitudinal, multivariate or other methods when the design and data support them.
-
Prepare agreed tables, figures, diagnostics and results text with limitations.
Evidence synthesis
-
Define the review question, eligibility criteria and reporting approach for the review type.
-
Include database searching, dual screening, extraction, risk-of-bias assessment or meta-analysis only when explicitly scoped.
-
Document methods and limitations and return protocol, screening and interpretation decisions to the research team.
Investigators retain control of the research question, variable definitions, screening decisions, interpretation and use of the results.
Check the evidence and prepare the next submission stage
A manuscript can be fluent while references, claims, numbers or submission files remain inconsistent. Select the checks and publication tasks that are relevant to each project instead of applying an undefined publication-readiness label.
1 Evidence checks
Where selected, check reference existence and DOI details, compare claims with supplied sources, review numerical consistency across text, tables and figures, and identify unresolved questions. For AI-assisted text, agreed checks can focus on evidence and citation problems rather than relying on a general AI label.
2 Submission preparation
Prepare the journal-specific files included in the scope, such as formatting, a cover letter, declarations, graphical material or other required documents.
3 Review and resubmission
Organize reviewer comments, revise the manuscript within the agreed scope and prepare replies that correspond with visible changes and author decisions.
Investigators retain control of the research question, variable definitions, screening decisions, interpretation and use of the results.
Related services:
Related services:
Agree confidentiality and decision rights before files move
Institutional files may contain unpublished findings, third-party material or information subject to internal controls. The engagement should identify what may be shared, who may approve decisions and which handling requirements EditPi can accept before project files are transferred.
File scope and transfer
Share only the files needed for the agreed work. Remove direct personal identifiers unless a separately agreed process permits otherwise. Tell EditPi about access, storage, retention or deletion requirements before transfer.
Contacts and approvals
Identify authorized contacts and the authors or investigators responsible for scientific queries, project approval and final use of the files.
Institutional responsibility
Ethics approval, participant privacy, permissions, authorship, conflicts, regulatory duties and institutional sign-off remain with the institution and its investigators.
If your institution requires an NDA, data-processing term, vendor onboarding or another contractual requirement, raise it before sending files. Work begins only after both sides confirm the terms they can accept.
Match expertise and checks to each project
A multi-project engagement may require different editorial, subject and methods expertise. The written scope should make the assignment basis and included review steps clear for every project.
CHECK
Defined quality review
Review the output against the confirmed deliverables. A second reviewer checks the work when that step is included in the project scope.
MATCH
File scope and transfer
Assign relevant expertise for the field, study design, document type and agreed work.
APPROVE
Author and institutional approval
Return visible changes, outputs and unresolved questions to the responsible authors or investigators for review and approval.
How an institutional engagement moves forward
01
Share the programme brief
Describe the research setting, approximate project volume, required workstreams, subject areas, timelines and institutional requirements.
04
Approve each scope
Confirm the included service, source files, deliverables, checks, timeline, price and revision terms before work begins.
02
Prioritize the projects
Identify the projects ready for review and the files, owners, deadlines and decisions associated with each one.
05
Complete and review
A suitable expert completes the agreed work; an additional reviewer checks it when included in the order.
03
Confirm operating terms
Agree the contacts, intake route, confidentiality expectations, approval points and programme-level arrangements that apply.
06
Receive and continue
Authors or investigators review the returned files and questions. Further projects, revisions or resubmissions follow new or existing written scopes.
Know what is agreed at programme and project level
An institutional engagement should make the shared operating process clear without hiding the scope of individual projects. The engagement arrangement and every project-specific quote should be readable on their own.
Programme-level arrangements
-
The agreed intake and communication route
-
Authorized contacts and approval points
-
Covered service categories
-
Confidentiality and file-handling expectations that EditPi has accepted
-
Any agreed status reporting or review cadence
Project-level written scope
-
The project and source files
-
Included editing, writing, methods or verification work
-
Deliverables and review steps
-
Timeline and price
-
Revision and additional-work terms
Institutional work is quoted after reviewing the number and type of projects, files, methods, checks, turnaround and coordination requirements. Published editing and manuscript-writing starting rates remain estimates; a written quote confirms the actual work and price. Any alternative pricing arrangement applies only when stated in writing.
FAQs
Plan support around your research pipeline
Share the projects, research stages, workstreams, subject areas and target dates you need to coordinate. EditPi will review the requirements it can undertake and return a proposed process, project scope and price in writing.
For the first review, send a programme summary rather than confidential or identifiable research data.
