Academic integrity and service-scope policy

This policy explains where the line sits between legitimate academic support and work that would misrepresent authorship. It applies to every service we offer and to everyone who works on client projects. We publish it so you can decide, before contacting us, whether the help you want is help we can give — and so you can show it to a supervisor or institution if you need to.

Principles

1. The person whose name is on the work is its author. Our support should leave you better able to explain, defend and take responsibility for what you submit.
2. Support depends on context. Coaching a student on their own essay, co-drafting a grant application with a principal investigator and writing a training manual for an institution are all legitimate — but they carry different expectations. We apply the norms of the setting the work is going into.
3. Nothing is fabricated. We never invent data, results, sources, quotations, participants or experiences.
4. Your institution's rules come first. Where a university, journal, funder or exam body sets rules about outside help or AI use, those rules govern what we do for you. If they are stricter than this policy, we follow them.
5. Transparency over concealment. We don't disguise the origin of text, help evade detection tools, or advise on how to hide assistance that should be disclosed.

What we do and don't do

For students (secondary school, undergraduate, master's)

Some universities limit editing of assessed work to spelling and grammar, or prohibit it altogether for certain assignments. Check your program's rules, and tell us about them — we will stay within them.

For doctoral candidates, researchers and authors

For applicants (admissions and scholarships)

Many programs ask applicants to confirm that their statements are their own work. Our support is designed so you can make that confirmation truthfully.

For professionals, faculty and institutions

In professional settings, drafting support is normal and expected. You review and approve everything before it is used, and you remain accountable for its accuracy.

How we handle requests that cross the line

Most requests that fall outside this policy are not made in bad faith. Deadlines are tight, rules differ between institutions, and it is not always obvious what counts as acceptable help. When a request crosses the line, we:

1. Tell you plainly which part we can't do and why, without assuming bad intent.
2. Suggest an alternative that meets the underlying need — for example, coaching and feedback in place of drafting, a tutoring session in place of a completed problem set, or an explanation of an analysis in place of a written-up results chapter.
3. Decline if no appropriate form of support fits, or if the request involves impersonation, exam-taking or fabrication.
4. Stop work if we learn during a project that our work is being used in a way that breaches this policy or the client's institutional rules. If we stop work for this reason, completed work is payable and any stage not yet started is refunded.

We don't report clients to their institutions as a matter of course. We will, however, refuse work, and we won't provide false statements about work we have done.

Acknowledging assistance

Many institutions, journals and funders expect you to acknowledge editorial, statistical or other professional help. Acknowledging help is usually straightforward and protects you. Check your institution's or journal's rules for the required wording and placement. Some examples you can adapt:

• Thesis — editing: "Professional copyediting of this thesis for grammar, spelling and consistency was provided by [provider], in accordance with [University]'s guidelines on editorial assistance. The content and argument are my own."
• Thesis — statistics: "Statistical consultation on the choice and running of the multilevel models reported in Chapter 4 was provided by [provider]. Interpretation of the results is my own."
• Journal article — language editing: "The authors thank [provider] for English language editing of the manuscript."
• Journal article — analysis: "Data analysis support was provided by [provider]. The authors designed the study, interpreted the results and take full responsibility for the content." Some journals ask for this in a contributor statement (for example using the CRediT taxonomy) rather than the acknowledgements.
• Grant proposal: Follow the funder's rules; some require disclosure of paid proposal-writing support in the application or to the research office.

On request, we provide a short email or letter describing the nature and extent of the support we gave on your project. You can use it when acknowledging help or if your supervisor, institution or journal asks what assistance you received.

Generative AI

Generative AI tools are now common in academic work, and institutional rules about them vary widely — from prohibition to required disclosure to open use. Our position:

• We don't produce text designed to evade AI detectors, and we don't offer "humanizing" or detector-bypass services.
• AI-detection scores are uncertain indicators, not proof. Detection tools can flag human-written text — including text by multilingual writers — and can miss AI-generated text. A score alone does not establish how a text was written. If you have received a detection report, our AI-detection report review service can help you understand it and document your writing process; we don't alter your text to change the score.
• Your institution's AI rules apply to your project. Tell us what they are. If your program prohibits AI assistance, we will not use AI tools on your text.
• How we use AI tools ourselves: we don't enter your documents or data into generative-AI tools unless you ask us to in writing. Every deliverable is prepared and checked by people, and we don't use client material to train AI models.

Similarity checks

Similarity reports (such as those produced by Turnitin-style tools) show text that matches other sources; they don't decide whether plagiarism occurred. We can help you interpret a report and fix genuine problems — missing citations, patchwriting, over-reliance on quotation — through proper citation and your own rewriting. See similarity report review. We don't paraphrase text to lower a similarity score.

Confidentiality

We treat your drafts, data and correspondence as confidential, share them only with the people working on your project, and don't reuse or publish client work. Confidentiality does not extend to concealing misconduct: we won't make false statements about the work we did if asked by you to do so. How we handle personal data is described in our privacy notice.

Raising a concern

If you are a client, a supervisor, an institution or anyone else with a concern about how our services are being used — or about work you believe we were involved in — please contact us through the contact page and describe the concern. We will review it, respond, and take action where it is warranted, while respecting client confidentiality.

You can also write directly to academiqforall@outlook.com with "Integrity concern" in the subject line.

Related

• How it works — how scope is agreed before work starts.
• Terms of service — the contractual version of these commitments.
• Academic integrity training — for students and staff.