Service
Output Quality Review
An independent, pre-publication check on whether a specific output meets the requirements of its audience.
The problem
Research reaches its audience with no independent check
The policy research, think tank, and NGO sectors produce vast quantities of research that goes directly to donors, boards, and the public, with too many organisations lacking the capacity for adequate quality assurance. Unlike academic publishing, which relies on peer review, most commissioned research and evaluation has no independent check on whether the methodology supports the claims, the evidence supports the conclusions, or the writing communicates clearly to its intended audiences.
The volume of research output is rising, and much of it is now AI-assisted. What has not scaled is the judgement required to assess whether a methodology genuinely supports the claims built on it, whether evidence has been over-interpreted, and whether findings will survive scrutiny. That assessment depends on domain expertise and professional accountability.
The consequences of weak research quality are significant. Flawed findings inform policy decisions. Organisations face reputational damage when methodological shortcomings are exposed. The time of research participants is not put to best use. Donors lose confidence in the evidence base for their investments. These are expensive problems, and independent research quality review prevents them.
The service
An expert judgement, not a proofread
Output Quality Review is a substantive, pre-publication assessment of a specific output's credibility and integrity. It is not copy-editing or proofreading. It is an expert judgement on whether the research is credible, and it is the quickest way to find out before it reaches the people it is meant to convince.
What is assessed
Reviews assess up to five dimensions
| Dimension | What is assessed |
|---|---|
| Methodological soundness | Is the research design appropriate for the questions asked? Are data collection methods rigorous? Are analytical approaches applied correctly? Are limitations acknowledged honestly? |
| Evidentiary support | Do the findings follow from the data presented? Are claims proportionate to the evidence? Are alternative explanations considered? Is attribution handled carefully? |
| Alignment with objectives | Does the research answer the questions it set out to address? Are the conclusions relevant to the stated purpose? Does the work deliver what the commissioning terms of reference required? |
| Clarity for audiences | Is the writing accessible to the intended readers, whether donors, policymakers, practitioners, or the public? Are technical concepts explained without oversimplification? Is the structure logical? |
| Research standards and methods | Is research quality standardised across multiple outputs so consistency does not depend on who produces each piece? |
What you receive
A structured assessment, with priorities ranked
Each review produces a structured assessment with specific, actionable recommendations: an overall judgement, a section-by-section assessment, and a summary of priority revisions ranked by importance. Where useful, I also provide a follow-up review of the revised version to confirm that issues have been addressed.
Rates run on a sliding scale designed to make high-quality research support accessible across different budgets.
More on how we work togetherThe process begins with a brief scoping conversation to understand the material, your timeline, and the level of review required. I then provide a fixed-fee quote and an estimated turnaround time.
How to get started
Start with a scoping conversation
A short, no-obligation conversation to understand your context and what success would look like. You then receive a fixed-fee quote and an estimated turnaround time.