EditverseTen steps from intake to handover, and who signs each one
This page sets out how a document moves through Editverse Medical: what is checked, against what, by which role, and what record you receive. The same sequence applies to a case report and a clinical study report. Only the checklist and the depth change.
The sequence at a glance
The working method, end to end
Each step has an owner and leaves a record. The person who drafts a section does not sign off its checks.
Guideline versions are listed on the standards page.
Intake and scoping
A medical writer reads the brief and files, logs each input received, and lists what is missing. The study design is identified and matched to its reporting guideline. You receive a written scope: tasks, inputs still needed, deliverables, number of revision rounds, price and date.
Source verification
Before drafting, the team confirms that the sources agree with each other: the protocol against the methods notes, the dataset or output against the stated sample size, the ethics approval and registration numbers against their documents. Discrepancies go back to you as queries.
Drafting against the named reporting guideline
The subject-matter expert sets the clinical argument and the outline. The medical writer drafts to the target journal's structure and limits with the checklist open: CONSORT 2025, STROBE, PRISMA 2020, CARE, STARD 2015, TRIPOD+AI or the guideline that fits. Each checklist item is mapped to a page and line.
Statistical check
The statistician reviews the choice of tests against the design and the data, the handling of missing data and multiplicity, and the reporting: effect sizes with confidence intervals and not P values alone, software and version named, prespecified and exploratory analyses told apart, as the ICMJE manuscript preparation guidance asks.
Data-to-text verification
A second team member traces every number in the abstract, text, tables and figures to the source output. Denominators, percentages and totals are recalculated. The abstract is compared line by line with the results section.
Reference verification
Every reference is matched to its PubMed record or the original publication: authors, title, journal, year, volume, pages and DOI. Each citation is then read against the sentence it supports. Retracted articles are flagged.
Language edit
A medical editor edits for clarity, consistency of terms and units, and the journal's style, AMA or Vancouver in most cases. Abbreviations are defined at first use and checked against a list.
Author review rounds
You and your co-authors review the draft. Comments are answered one by one in a change log. The number of rounds is fixed and stated on the product page or the quote. Any revised number or reference goes back through steps 4 to 6.
Final checklist
The reporting checklist is completed with page and line references. Journal requirements are confirmed: word counts, abstract structure, reference style, figure format, and the statements on ethics approval, consent, registration, funding, conflicts of interest and data sharing.
Handover
You receive the final files, the completed checklist, the QC sheet, the reference library and the change log. The authors approve the final text before submission and keep authorship and accountability.
A sample QC sheet
The sheet below shows the structure delivered with a manuscript. The entries are illustrative, written for an invented two-arm randomised trial, and are not results from any real project.
| No. | Check | Checked against | Role | Result recorded (illustrative) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Inputs logged and complete | Scope document | Medical writer | 7 of 7 inputs received. Registration number supplied on query. |
| 2 | Sources agree with each other | Protocol, analysis output, ethics letter | Medical writer | Primary outcome wording differs between protocol and output. Resolved with author, protocol wording used. |
| 3 | Reporting checklist complete | CONSORT 2025 checklist | Subject-matter expert | All items mapped to page and line. One item marked not applicable, with reason. |
| 4 | Participant flow adds up | Flow diagram, analysis output | Statistician | Randomised 212, analysed 204. Exclusions after randomisation sum to 8. Pass. |
| 5 | Statistical methods match analyses reported | Analysis plan, output | Statistician | Pass. Software and version added to methods. |
| 6 | Numbers in text and tables match source | Analysis output | Second reader | 146 values traced. 2 rounding differences corrected in Table 2. |
| 7 | Abstract matches results | Results section | Second reader | Pass after one confidence interval corrected. |
| 8 | References verified | PubMed record or original | Medical editor | 38 references checked. 3 corrected: year, page range, author order. |
| 9 | Citations support their sentences | Cited source | Subject-matter expert | 1 citation replaced with the primary source. |
| 10 | Journal requirements met | Author instructions of target journal | Medical editor | Word count within limit. Structured abstract. Registration number at end of abstract. |
| 11 | Required statements present | ICMJE Recommendations, January 2026 | Medical writer | Ethics, consent, funding, conflicts, data sharing and acknowledgment of writing support present. |
| 12 | Author comments closed | Change log | Medical writer | Round 1: 23 comments, all answered. Round 2: 4 comments, all answered. |
For a systematic review the sheet adds search reproducibility, screening counts against the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram, and extraction spot checks. For a clinical study report it adds table, listing and figure cross-references and section mapping to ICH E3.
Roles on a project
| Role | Background | Responsible for |
|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter expert | PhD or MD in the manuscript's field | Clinical argument and outline, choice of comparators and context, reporting checklist sign-off, citation support check |
| Medical writer | Trained in medical and scientific writing | Intake and scope, source verification, drafting, change log, required statements, handover package. Your point of contact. |
| Statistician | Biostatistics, with SPSS, R or Stata | Analysis where commissioned, statistical check, participant flow, methods paragraph, tables and figures from data |
| Medical editor | Language editing in AMA and Vancouver style | Language edit, reference verification, journal formatting |
| Second reader | A team member who did not draft the text | Data-to-text verification and abstract check |
| Authors | You and your co-authors | The research, the data, direction of content, review in each round, approval of the final text, authorship and accountability |
What you provide
Data or analysed output, the protocol or methods notes, ethics approval and registration details, key references, and the target journal, university or funder. Answers to queries within the agreed dates keep the delivery date fixed.
Outside the method
Editverse Medical does not collect data, change data, or decide authorship. Journals are chosen from independent third-party titles only.
The standards behind the checks
Work is aligned with COPE, the ICMJE Recommendations (January 2026) and GPP 2022, with institutional and country-specific ethics requirements followed. The reporting guideline applied to each document type, with its current version, is listed on the standards page. Clinical fields and study designs are listed under specialties covered.
See the method applied to your document
Send the brief. The scoping reply names the guideline, the checks that apply and the roles assigned, with a fixed price and date.