Kinesiology Editing and Proofreading Services

Twenty-two participants completed the protocol and the training effect was substantial. They were undergraduates from the exercise science programme, mean age twenty-one, all recreationally active, sixteen of them men, none with a history of the injury the intervention is proposed for. The result is real for those twenty-two. Whether it says anything about the population the paper's discussion addresses is a separate question the paper never asks.

We edit what kinesiology and exercise science researchers write — training and intervention studies, biomechanics and motion analysis papers, exercise physiology testing protocols, motor control and learning research, rehabilitation and return-to-sport studies, sport performance analyses, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, ethics and screening documentation, and theses, articles and grant applications. Our editors work on the participant description and the limit it sets.

The participant description is what determines who a kinesiology result applies to, and its failure is a convenience sample described in three lines and generalised in the discussion. Physiological and motor responses differ by training history, sex, age and injury status, and those differences are frequently larger than the effect being tested. We work through these so participants are described on the dimensions that moderate the outcome — training status with how it was defined, sex, age range, injury history, and habitual activity measured rather than self-labelled; so recruitment is described as it happened, since a sample drawn from one programme's students is a specific population and readers should be told; so inclusion and exclusion criteria are given with how many people each one removed, because that flow describes the sample better than the criteria do; so baseline values are reported so a reader can see where on the range the participants sat, given that a training effect in untrained people says little about trained ones; so the discussion is written for the population actually studied and any extension is labelled as speculation; so sex is reported as measured and analysed rather than adjusted for or ignored; and so the limitation is stated as a boundary rather than an apology. Papers written this way get applied to the right people.

Everything you send is treated in confidence, including unpublished data, participant information and athlete records. We are editors rather than kinesiologists or clinicians, and we offer no view on protocols, results or training or rehabilitation practice. What we can do is fix who your result is about.