Overview
Most applicants are too close to their proposal to see it as a reviewer does. They know what each section means, so gaps in logic, unexplained jargon and inconsistencies between sections are invisible. A mock review simulates the real process: we read the proposal once, as a busy panel member would, and write a critique using the funder's criteria and scoring language — Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts for NSF, the simplified review factors for NIH, Excellence, Impact and Implementation for Horizon Europe, or the published criteria of a foundation or council.
Editing then addresses how the proposal reads. We work at the level you need: developmental editing for structure and argument, line editing for clarity and flow, and copyediting for consistency, terminology and funder formatting. Researchers writing in English as an additional language often find that clearer sentences let the science stand out.
For larger proposals or institutional programs we can run a mock review panel with more than one reviewer, followed by a consensus summary like the one real panels produce. We cannot predict or promise a score, but we can help you remove the problems that most often cost points.
Who it’s for and the problems it solves
This is for you if you are…
- Principal investigators with a near-final draft two to four weeks before a deadline
- Research offices wanting independent mock review for institutional applicants
- Applicants writing in English as an additional language
- Teams whose sections were written by different people and need harmonizing
- Fellowship and early-career applicants without an experienced mentor to review
Common problems we help with
- No one outside your team has read the proposal
- The proposal is over the page limit and you cannot decide what to cut
- Sections contradict each other on numbers, timing or terminology
- You worry that reviewers from other fields will not follow your argument
- English phrasing is getting in the way of the science
- You want to know how the proposal scores against the criteria before submitting
What’s included — and what isn’t
Included
- Mock review against the funder's published criteria, with strengths, weaknesses and an indicative rating in the funder's style
- Optional multi-reviewer mock panel with a consensus summary for larger proposals
- Developmental editing of structure, argument and flow between sections
- Line editing for clarity, concision and readability, including for EAL writers
- Copyediting for consistency of terms, abbreviations, numbers and references
- Page-limit trimming with options for what to cut
- Consistency checks between aims, methods, timeline, budget and supporting documents
- Compliance check of formatting, required sections and attachments against the current guidance
Not included
- Rewriting the scientific content or changing your research question
- Checking the correctness of specialized technical detail beyond general scientific logic
- Predicting or promising a score, percentile or funding decision
- Submitting the proposal on your behalf
What you receive
- Mock review report
- A critique structured by the funder's criteria, with strengths, weaknesses, an indicative rating and prioritized recommendations.
- Edited proposal
- A tracked-change file at the agreed editing level, with comments explaining substantive suggestions.
- Consistency and compliance checklist
- A list of mismatches, missing items and formatting issues to resolve before submission.
- Panel summary (optional)
- For mock panels, a consensus-style summary combining reviewer views, with a short discussion call.
How it works
Scope and criteria
You send the draft and the call. We confirm the criteria, editing level and deadline.
Reviewer read
We read the proposal as a reviewer and write the mock review before editing, to preserve a first-impression view.
Editing
We edit at the agreed level and check consistency and compliance.
Debrief
An optional call to discuss the review and agree priorities for revision.
Final check
If time allows, a quick check of your revised version before submission.
Review frameworks and editing levels
- Criteria-based mock review
- Structured by the funder's own criteria, such as NSF's two merit review criteria, NIH's three simplified review factors or Horizon Europe's three award criteria.
- Mock review panel
- Two or more independent readers, followed by a consensus summary, mirroring how panels reach decisions.
- Developmental editing
- Structure, argument, section order and the balance of space between sections.
- Line editing
- Sentence clarity, concision, transitions and readability for non-specialist reviewers.
- Copyediting
- Consistency of terminology, abbreviations, numbers, capitalization and references, following your funder's formatting rules.
- Consistency audit
- Cross-checking aims, work plan, personnel, budget and letters for contradictions.
Why the mock review comes before editing
Once a proposal has been polished, readers tend to be more forgiving. We therefore write the mock review from the first read, capturing the impression a real reviewer would form, and edit afterwards. That way you see both the substantive weaknesses and the fixes at sentence level, and you can decide which matter most in the time left.
What a mock review typically catches
Mock reviews rarely find the science weak. They usually find that the proposal does not make it easy for the reviewer to see its strengths.
- The significance or gap is stated too late or too vaguely
- Aims or objectives depend on each other with no alternatives
- Rigor elements such as power, controls or analysis plans are missing
- Broader impacts or impact pathways are generic
- The timeline, budget and personnel effort do not match
- Key terms are introduced without definition for non-specialist reviewers
Institutional mock panels
Research offices sometimes run internal review for strategic calls such as ERC or large center grants. We can supplement internal reviewers, provide an external perspective and prepare consensus summaries, working within your institution's timeline and confidentiality arrangements.
What the work can look like
Illustrative example — fictional data
Illustrative mock review excerpt (NIH-style)
A fictional R01-style application on a digital intervention for adolescent sleep. Extract from the mock review written before editing.
Factor 1: Importance of the Research
Strengths: clear public health relevance and a well-defined gap in evidence for scalable interventions. Weakness: the innovation claim is not distinguished from two existing app-based programs cited in the background; the proposal should state what is new in the intervention's mechanism.
Factor 2: Rigor and Feasibility
Strengths: randomized design with preregistration planned. Weaknesses: sample size justification relies on an effect size from a small pilot without discussing uncertainty; retention strategies for the 12-month follow-up are not described; sex as a biological variable is not addressed.
Priority fixes
1) Add a sentence contrasting the intervention with existing programs. 2) Justify the sample size with a range of plausible effects and expected attrition. 3) Add retention strategies and a missing data plan.
Illustrative example with an invented application. It does not predict how real reviewers would score any proposal.
What you’ll need to provide
- The complete or near-complete draft, including supporting documents if they are to be checked
- The funding opportunity, review criteria and any reviewer guidance
- Your preferred editing level and style (US or UK English)
- Previous reviews if this is a resubmission
- Your deadline and any internal review dates
You don’t need everything ready to ask for a quote — tell us what you have and we’ll say what’s missing.
What affects price and turnaround
Price depends on
- Length of the proposal and supporting documents
- Editing level: copyediting, line editing or developmental editing
- Mock review by one reader or a multi-reviewer panel
- Time available before the deadline
Turnaround depends on
- Proposal length and editing level
- Deadline and whether a second check of your revision is needed
- Completeness of the draft when we receive it
Every project is quoted individually. How we price our work.
Questions people ask before starting
Will you tell me what score I will get?
We give an indicative rating in the funder's style to show where the proposal stands against the criteria, but real scores depend on reviewers, competition and the panel discussion. No one can predict or promise a score.
How long before the deadline should I send the draft?
Ideally two to three weeks, so you have time to act on the mock review. For editing only, a shorter window can work.
Can you edit a proposal written in British English for a US funder?
Yes. We follow your choice of spelling and your funder's conventions, and keep it consistent throughout.
Is a mock review confidential?
Yes. Your proposal is used only for your review, and we are happy to work under a non-disclosure agreement.
Can you review just one section?
Yes, though we recommend at least reading the aims or summary alongside it so feedback reflects the whole proposal.