PhD Researchers & Doctoral Candidates
An independent check before you submit a paper or defend a thesis—so the examiner's objections don't surprise you.
Institutional Service
Statistical & Methodological Audit
The toughest review of your analysis should come from your side of the table, not the referee's. We audit an analysis you already have—independently checking specification, assumptions, robustness, and reproducibility—and hand you the objections a reviewer would raise, while there's still time to answer them.
Independent & external
Any analysis, any analyst
Pre-submission & reviewer-response
Structured audit report
Sample output
passed
flagged
Overview
A referee's read, before the referee
Every empirical paper is examined twice: once by the people who wrote it, and once by a referee looking for reasons to reject it. The gap between those two readings is where most rejections live—the untested assumption, the endogeneity waved away, the robustness check that was never run. An audit closes that gap by bringing the second, adversarial read forward, while you can still act on it.
We review the analysis independently, whoever produced it. We check that the estimator suits the data and the claim, that the assumptions were tested rather than assumed, that identification holds, and that the diagnostic, robustness, and sensitivity work is complete. Where you provide data and code, we replicate the results to confirm they reproduce exactly.
The deliverable is a structured audit report: every issue found, ranked by how likely a referee is to raise it, with a concrete fix for each—and, where needed, the corrected or additional analysis to resolve it. It is the cheapest insurance available against an avoidable rejection.
Who We Work With
For anyone about to submit—or revise
If your analysis is done and the stakes are high, an independent audit is the right next step.
Faculty & Academic Researchers
A pre-submission audit for a high-stakes paper, or a fast, rigorous check when a referee raises a methodological concern.
Journals & Editors
Independent statistical and methodological review of submissions where the analysis needs a specialist eye.
Co-Authors & Research Teams
A neutral second opinion on a shared analysis before it goes out under everyone's name.
Research Institutes & Policy Teams
Quality assurance on analysis that will be published, quoted, or used to justify a decision.
Grant & Funding Applicants
Verification that the methodology in a proposal or report is sound and defensible.
Capabilities
The full audit checklist
Organized by what a referee scrutinizes—from core specification to reproducibility. If your analysis needs a check not listed here, ask—this is the core, not the boundary.
Is the model right?
Whether the estimator and specification suit the data and the claim being made.
- Statistical audit
- Econometric audit
- Model-selection review
- Specification testing
- Assumption testing
Do the assumptions hold?
The full battery of diagnostic tests that decide whether the estimates are trustworthy.
- Endogeneity assessment
- Multicollinearity assessment
- Heteroskedasticity testing
- Autocorrelation testing
- Cross-sectional dependence
- Unit-root testing
- Cointegration assessment
Does it survive scrutiny?
Whether the result holds under stress and reproduces from the data and code.
- Robustness testing
- Sensitivity analysis
- Falsification tests
- Placebo tests
- Replication analysis
- Reproducibility assessment
What You Receive
Every engagement, delivered in full
Not a black-box result and a number, but a complete, documented package you can submit, defend, and reproduce.
- Structured audit report with an executive summary
- Issues ranked by severity and reviewer likelihood
- Diagnostic and specification test results
- Robustness and sensitivity findings
- Replication and reproducibility assessment
- A concrete recommendation to fix each issue
- Corrected or additional analysis, where required
- Support drafting technical responses to reviewers
- Reproducible code for any checks we run
Where this fits
Part of a larger arc
The audit is the Validate stage of the MAS Research Model—the independent check between analysis and publication that catches what everything upstream missed.
Research Design & Planning
Identification strategy, power, and specification decided before estimation begins.
Explore methodsStatistical & Methodological Audit
An independent check of assumptions, specification, and reproducibility before submission.
Explore auditPublication & Research Support
Methods and results reporting, journal selection, and reviewer-response support.
Explore support
FAQ
Common questions
Answers to what most researchers and project leads ask before commissioning an audit.
It is an independent review of an analysis you already have—before a referee sees it. We examine the model specification, the assumptions, the diagnostics, and the robustness of your results, and report the objections a careful reviewer would raise, so you can address them in advance rather than in a rejection letter.
No. The audit is deliberately independent—we review work regardless of who produced it, including your own analysis, a co-author's, or a student's. All we need is the data, the code or output, and a description of what was done.
The full battery a referee would: whether the estimator suits the data, whether assumptions were tested, endogeneity and identification, multicollinearity, heteroskedasticity, autocorrelation, unit roots and cointegration where relevant, specification, and whether the robustness and sensitivity checks are adequate.
Yes. Where you provide data and code, we run a replication and reproducibility assessment—independently confirming the reported numbers and flagging any coding, specification, or inference discrepancies we find.
Very. When a referee raises a methodological concern, an audit tells you precisely how serious it is and what additional test or specification answers it—and we can run those checks and help draft the technical response.
Yes. Editors and journals commission independent methodological review of submissions where statistical or econometric rigor is in question, as a check beyond standard peer review.
A structured audit report: the issues found, ranked by severity; the tests we ran; concrete recommendations to fix each one; and, where applicable, corrected or additional analysis and reproducible code.
An audit starts from what you already have and tells you whether it holds—faster and cheaper than a rebuild when the work is largely sound. If the audit reveals deeper problems, we can then advise on or carry out the necessary re-analysis.
Related Expertise
Often paired with econometrics
Analysis done, submission looming?
Send us the analysis and the data—we'll audit it and tell you exactly what a referee would, while there's still time to fix it.