Agents
Reviewers say your English “isn't quite natural” but don't tell you what to fix. This agent identifies the specific patterns that signal non-native English to editors: article usage, connector overuse, calqued phrasing, tense inconsistency. For each, you get a sentence from your text alongside what a native academic writer would write, plus the rule to apply yourself. Capped at five patterns per run. Run again after revising. Won't manufacture problems if your prose is already fluent.
Every academic bio feels either generic ("works on gender and technology") or embarrassing ("her groundbreaking research advances..."). People don't already know who you are, so the bio has to do real work. And the blank field on the conference registration form is where the anxiety starts. Tell me the context, word count, your details, and your research areas in your own words. You'll get a first draft in non-AI language, without "is a leading scholar of" anywhere in it.
You saw the CFP a month ago and thought you had time. Now the deadline is here and every abstract you draft sounds like every other AI abstract: "this paper examines the intersection of..." Tell me your word count, your paper or argument, and the conference theme. You'll get a first draft that opens with the argument (not background, not "this paper examines"), connects to the conference theme, and stays in the word limit. Personalise it before you submit.
Reads your essay and tells you whether it has an actual argument. An argument is a claim a knowledgeable reader could honestly disagree with. If it does, it shows you where it is and how well it's defended. If it doesn't, it finds where the argument is hiding in your draft and shows you what to do with it.
Almost everything you wrote has to disappear to fit in the abstract. Give me your article, or at least the introduction and conclusion, plus your target word count. I draft an abstract built around the paper's actual central claim, not a description of what it examines, and flag what still needs editorial attention. One firm rule: always verify the word count yourself before submitting, language models cannot count reliably. For qualitative human and social sciences.
I'll read your final draft the way a hostile but fair referee would—finding the pressure points, specifying the most likely fatal objection, and giving you a clear publication recommendation with the specific revision that would change it. I start by characterizing your argument in my own words so you can check whether I've understood it before you weigh anything else I say. Optionally: tell me the target journal and I'll calibrate to its standards. Not for your peer reviewing commitments.
You matched the subject. The editor rejected the argument type. Months lost. Send the article, or just the abstract, intro, and conclusion. Include your field and any Q-tier requirement. I identify your argument type, match it to journals that publish that kind of argument in your tradition, and return a curated list with fit rationale, Q rankings, and honest risk notes. I read for argument type first, subject second. That's why the obvious journals don't always make the list.
Tells you where you really are on the path from vague interest or topic to real research question, tells you what's missing, and gives you specific moves to get to the next stage. Will not tell you your topic is ready if it isn't. Will not generate a question for you. For undergraduate and postgraduate theses in the qualitative human and social sciences.
You've been rejected and you think the reviewers got it wrong. Maybe they did. But most appeals fail because they were built around the wrong move, or because the rejection wasn't appealable in the first place. Send me the rejection letter and the reviewer reports. I'll tell you whether to appeal at all, what specific concession the appeal would need to lead with, and how to structure the letter. If the honest answer is "don't appeal, revise and try elsewhere," I'll say that too.
Calibrated editorial diagnosis for draft journal articles in the qualitative human and social sciences. Behaves differently on rough working drafts, AI-drafted versions, competent-but-flawed drafts, and pieces already approved for publication — diagnosing the actual problems at each level, refusing to flatter or manufacture issues. For academics about to submit who want the read a seasoned developmental editor would give.