The editorial process describes what happens to every piece. This page is about whether that process is actually working — measured by people who did not do the work, against a scorecard published in full, with the results printed whether they flatter us or not.
Six criteria, weighted. An auditor scores each from 1 to 5 without knowing who wrote the piece or which manager owned it. Below 4.00 overall, or any single criterion at 2, triggers the escalation path.
The scorecard is interactive so you can see how the weighting behaves — move any criterion and watch what it costs. Weights and thresholds are design placeholders.
Published whether they moved the right way or not. Where a figure got worse, the reason sits underneath it rather than in a footnote.
Target is one in ten; the increase came from more triggered audits, not more random ones.
The gain is entirely in citation consistency after the checklist was rewritten in April.
Four late deliveries in June, all in one subject where a specialist withdrew mid-order. All refunded automatically.
Deliberate. Second readers were told to return borderline work rather than annotate it — a rising number here is the system working.
Tracks the outline-approval rule introduced for pieces above 1,500 words.
Two thirds were automatic late-delivery refunds rather than disputes.
Every figure above is invented sample data from the design bundle. None of it has been measured — see the note at the foot of this page.
A sample that only ever contains suspicious work tells you nothing about the rest.
every delivered piece is eligible, drawn weekly
first piece from a new specialist, or a subject with a thin panel
a revision request, a low rating, or a return at second read
any client can ask for their own piece to be audited
Blind marking is only blind if the identifying material is actually withheld.
Your order is put right before anyone internally discusses cause — you are not waiting on our process.
A rewrite or a refund is decided before any internal conversation about cause. You are not waiting on our process.
Academic manager
The failure is attributed to the checkpoint that should have caught it — not to a person. Almost always the checklist was silent on it.
Managing editor
Wording is changed, and every reviewer is told what changed and why. The old wording stays on file.
Managing editor
If the same cause appears twice after amendment, it becomes a training item and the panel member is re-scored on their next three pieces.
Quality review
Entry is the easy part. Staying is what the scorecard is for.
a degree in the field, a sample assessed blind, and a paid trial piece scored against the same scorecard.
the last ten scored pieces. Below 3.8 pauses new offers until three supervised pieces clear 4.0.
any fabricated source, or two audits below 3.0, ends the arrangement immediately.
a track record above 4.5 raises the fee per piece — quality is the only thing that pays more here.
credentials re-checked every two years, because a panel is a list that quietly goes stale.
The scorecard and the second-read note for your own piece are yours on request, at any time, without a reason.