Reviewer wants more analysis. We reprocess your data and write the response
Local resolution, 3D variability, extra classification, validation statistics, model re-refinement. Done on your existing data, with the figures and the methods text, on your revision deadline. $600–1,500 per request, fixed before any work starts.
Work is done by Ian Cooney, Ph.D. (Stanford; first-author Science and Nature Communications), not routed to anonymous contractors.
Paste the comment itself. We can usually tell you what it will take before quoting.
- Single reviewer request$600–1,500
One analysis reprocessed on your existing data, with the figure and the methods text written so you can edit it. Most are days rather than weeks.
Fixed price agreed before any work starts. If the job turns out to be smaller than quoted, the quote goes down.
Requests we handle
Local resolution and directional resolution
Local resolution maps, 3DFSC or equivalent anisotropy analysis, and an honest answer to whether preferred orientation is limiting you. Usually asked when a reviewer doubts a single global number represents the whole map.
Heterogeneity and conformational analysis
3D variability, 3D classification without alignment, multibody or focused refinement to show the flexible region is genuinely flexible rather than badly refined. Often the request behind "have you considered that this is an average of multiple states?".
Additional classification
Reviewers asking whether a minor class was missed, or whether a bound density is present in a subset of particles. We rerun classification on your existing stack and report what is actually there, including when the answer is that the class does not exist.
Validation and overfitting
Half-map FSC, map-to-model FSC, per-residue map correlation, and refinement statistics reported the way a validation report expects. Also the awkward one: whether a map genuinely supports the resolution claimed for it.
Model quality
Re-refinement in Phenix or ISOLDE, geometry and clash cleanup, register checks, and trimming coordinates that density does not support. This last one is what a careful reviewer notices most often.
Figures and methods text
Publication-quality panels for whatever was added, plus the methods paragraph and the point-by-point response text describing exactly what was done. Written so you can edit it, in your voice.
Why hand this over
Revisions arrive at the worst possible time. The person who did the original processing has often moved on, the project directories are six months cold, and the requested analysis is something nobody in the lab has run before. The work itself is rarely difficult; the cost is the weeks spent rebuilding context under a deadline.
This is also work with a hard finish line. It is a specific question about data that already exists, which is why it can be quoted at a fixed price and turned around in days.
Send us the comments
Paste what the reviewer asked for and your deadline. You get a fixed price and an honest read on whether the deadline is achievable.
Questions
How fast can you turn this around?
Tell us the deadline in your first message and we will tell you honestly whether it is achievable before you commit. Most single-request reprocessing is days rather than weeks, since the data already exists and the question is specific. What is not fast is anything requiring reprocessing from raw movies on a large dataset.
What do you need from us?
The reviewer comments, and enough of the processing state to continue from: particle stack, the relevant job directories or a cryoSPARC or RELION project export, and the current map and model. If you are unsure what to send, send the reviewer comments first and we will tell you exactly what is needed.
Will you tell us if the reviewer is right?
Yes, and that is part of the value. If the requested analysis shows your claim does not hold, you need to know that from us before a reviewer concludes it themselves. We have never found it useful to tell someone what they hoped to hear about their own map.
How is authorship or acknowledgement handled?
Your call, and we are happy either way. Most of this work is service and is normally acknowledged rather than authored. If a contribution turns out to be substantial enough that authorship is the right answer, we would rather discuss it than have it be awkward later.
What does it cost?
Single reviewer request, $600–1,500. Fixed price agreed before any work starts. If the job turns out to be smaller than quoted, the quote goes down. Priced on the specific requests rather than an hourly rate that grows under deadline pressure. Several requests in one revision are quoted together and cost less than the sum of the parts.
Can you help if the data was collected elsewhere?
Yes. It does not matter which facility collected it or which software the original processing used. We work from what you have, and moving between RELION and cryoSPARC mid-project is routine.