Academic Translation with Independent Revision for Researchers
Pubrica provides academic translation with independent revision for researchers, universities and life-science companies. You receive a revised translation, an agreed glossary, a revision report and, on request, a certificate of translation. Our translators work on dissertations, cover pages, textbooks, proposals, artwork, videos and scientific and academic documents across subjects, and a second linguist then checks the translation against the source, as ISO 17100 requires. This revision step distinguishes a translation service from a single translator working alone.
- Translation by a bilingual subject matter expert who works in your discipline, rather than a generalist linguist
- 500+ experts with precise translation skills, across ten language pairs into and out of English
- A four-step translation and review process: translation, revision against the source, subject editing of the English text and a final check
- A glossary agreed before we start and handed to you at the end, so your terminology stays consistent across documents
- Free re-translation within the agreed scope if the quality does not meet the agreed standard, and a free certificate of translation naming the translator and the reviser
Revision by a second linguist, against the sourceRequired
Defined translator qualification routesRequired
Terminology agreed before draftingOur practice
Back-translationNot in any translation standard
“100% accuracy”Not in any standard
Translate → check → revise → review → verify
- Revised by a second linguist
- Reviewed by an editor in your field
- Terminology agreed before we start
- Glossary handed over at the end
- Free re-translation within the agreed scope if quality falls short
Service Scope
Six Components Included in Every Translation
Every translation is handled by at least two linguists, and independent revision is included as standard rather than as an upgrade.
Example translator profileChinese to English · MA in translation and interpreting · nine years in oncology and clinical trials · 40 published translations in the field. You are told who the translator is before the project starts.
Example revisionPatients who did not complete the course were excluded from the analysis.Patients who did not complete the course were included in the intention-to-treat analysis — the source says 纳入, included.
Example monolingual reviewThe experiment obtained a satisfactory result, which has certain reference significance for clinical work.These findings may inform treatment selection in locally advanced disease.
Example glossary entries总生存期 → overall survival (OS) · 病理学完全缓解 → pathological complete response (pCR) · 不良反应 → adverse event, the MedDRA term · where your 2021 paper differs from us, your wording wins.
Example queryQ7 — 该药物 in paragraph 12 could mean either drug named in the sentence before it. English forces a choice and Chinese does not. Please tell us which. We have left it as “the drug”.
Example certificate wording“I certify that the attached English text is a complete and accurate translation of the attached Chinese source document.” Signed, naming the translator and the reviser. We will also tell you when what your recipient needs is a sworn or notarised translation, which this is not.
The samples shown are illustrative and anonymised. Hover over a sample to replay it.
Who We Serve
Translation for Researchers, Institutions and Life Science Companies
The same rate covers different work depending on where the document is going, so we first establish which of the following groups you belong to.
Compliance and Standards
Seven Standards Governing Research Translation
Translation with independent revision follows the structure of ISO 17100, an international standard. Pubrica works in compliance with the guidance below, and each item is listed with its version and amendment.
ISO 17100 Translation services (2015 + Amd 1:2017)
Requires revision by a second person against the source, which is why this is a two-linguist service. Amendment 1 dated 5 September 2017.
ISO 18587 Post-editing (2017, under revision)
Under ballot as ISO/DIS 18587 since 4 September 2026, retitled to cover “non-human translation output”.
ISO 5060 Evaluation of translation output (2024)
Defines an error typology with weights and severity levels, which is why no translation provider can credibly promise a flawless translation.
US certified translation (8 CFR 103.2(b)(3))
Requires the translator’s own certification that the translation is complete and accurate. There is no government register.
EU Medical Device Regulation (language requirements)
Applied with the European Commission’s language requirements table, Revision 3, August 2025, and MDCG 2019-9 Rev.1 for the SSCP.
EU Clinical Trials Regulation (via EMA CTIS guidance)
Sets language rules for lay summaries and patient-facing trial documents.
ISO 9001 Quality management (2015, certified)
Pubrica is certified to this standard, cert. H3CR9TCU20251212INDQM10N. It is a quality management certification and is not a certification against a translation standard.
Responsible Use of AI
Responsible Use of AI and Disclosure in Translation
In editing, the difference between improving a sentence and writing it is the difference between an editor and an author. Journals permit assistance but prohibit undisclosed assistance, and several now ask authors about it directly.
Why We Do Not Publish an AI Accuracy Figure
Accuracy figures for AI tools are usually reported by the companies that sell them.
Pubrica therefore does not quote a self-generated accuracy figure, because it would carry the same conflict of interest. Instead, we tell you which tool was used on your project, at which stage, and what a specialist changed afterwards.
How It Works
How a Translation Project Works
A manuscript takes six to ten business days, and longer documents take longer.
Language Pair, Purpose and Terminology Briefing
We confirm the target variety, such as Simplified or Traditional Chinese, Iberian or Latin American Spanish, or European or Brazilian Portuguese, because each is a different target language. We then agree the glossary, which is handed over at the end.
Translation by a Qualified Subject Translator
We match the translator to your field as well as the language pair. The translator then checks their own work, which ISO 17100 calls a check and distinguishes from the later stages.
Independent Revision Against the Source Text
A second linguist, not the translator, examines the translation against the source in both languages. This stage defines the service and is why it costs more than a marketplace per-word rate.
Monolingual Subject Review in English
A subject editor reads the English text alone to correct calqued structures that are grammatical but unidiomatic, and terminology that is consistent in the source but inconsistent in English.
Formatting for the Target Journal or Submission
We format to the journal’s word limits, reference style, figures and layout or, for a regulated document, to the market’s labelling requirements.
Final Verification, Delivery and Free Re-Translation Where Required
We verify the translation against the brief and deliver it with the glossary and, if requested, the certificate. If you are not satisfied with the quality, we re-translate it at no additional cost, within the agreed scope.
Request a Free 500-Word Sample Translation
We translate a sample from your own document and a second linguist revises it as in the full project, within two business days. The sample shows our register, terminology handling and treatment of passages that do not translate directly before you commit.
Please tell us if the document has already been machine-translated. Post-edited machine output resembles a human draft but needs different handling, and a translator asked to improve it without being told usually takes longer than one translating from the source. It changes the service, the standard and the price.
Language Pairs
Translation in Ten Language Pairs, Into and Out of English
We offer a language pair only when we can assign a qualified translator and an independent reviser. Where we cannot, we tell you and decline the work rather than routing it through a third language.
Our Experts
Our Translation Team
A named team of subject specialists stays with your project from scoping to delivery. Your project coordinator introduces each team member by name before work begins.
Reviews the scientific content for accuracy and confirms that each conclusion is supported by the evidence. Each expert is matched to your field of research.
Edits for clarity, grammar, structure and consistency while preserving the author voice and scientific meaning.
Checks the finished work independently against the agreed scope and the applicable checklist. Findings are logged and resolved before delivery.
Manages the timeline, keeps you informed at each stage and coordinates the team so that questions are answered and deadlines are met.
Sample Work
Sample Translation Revision Report
Step through the revision change by change, with the reason for each, to see how a second linguist revises the first linguist’s work. Below it is the report delivered with each project, which lists every change, including where the first linguist’s rendering was upheld and the reviser overruled.
Methods · opening · Chinese source: 本研究共纳入126例局部晚期胸腺癌患者，随机分为两组。
This research altogether included 126 cases ofA total of 126 patients with1 local late-stagelocally advanced2 pancreas cancer patientspancreatic cancer3 were dividedenrolled and randomly assigned4 randomly into two groupsto one of two groups. The two groups’ baseline materials had no obvious differenceBaseline characteristics did not differ significantly between the groups (all p > 0.05)5, and all patients signed the informed consent bookgave written informed consent6.
The treatment group used the new plan and the control group used the conventional planintervention group received modified FOLFIRINOX and the control group received gemcitabine monotherapy. Observe and compare the curative effect and safety of the two groupsThe primary endpoint was overall survival; the secondary endpoints were objective response rate and treatment-related adverse events. Statistics used SPSS 26.0 software for processingAnalyses were performed in SPSS 26.0.
First pass. Five terms, rendered nine different ways across the manuscript.
- 手术后 → after the operation — and also: post-surgery, postoperation, post op
- 总生存期 → total survival period
- 随访 → follow-up visit — and also: return visit
- 不良反应 → bad reaction
- 病理学完全缓解 → pathology completely relieved
Revised. One agreed term for each, with the authority recorded beside it.
- 手术后 → postoperative — one form, 31 occurrences
- 总生存期 → overall survival (OS) — defined at first use
- 随访 → follow-up — noun; “followed up” as a verb
- 不良反应 → adverse event — MedDRA term
- 病理学完全缓解 → pathological complete response (pCR)
Terminology agreed against MedDRA, the journal’s own instructions and the author’s earlier published work, then applied across the manuscript, the tables and the figure captions together.
Translation revision report
Chinese to English · 5,400 words · oncology manuscript
Revision · terminology · register · unchanged
63 revisions to the first translation3 changed a finding
- Glossary agreed before translation
- 41 terms, drawn from the authors’ earlier English paper and the target journal’s field conventions. They were agreed in writing, so terminology did not need to be revisited at stage four.
- Terms rendered inconsistently in the first draft
- 7. The same Chinese term appeared as three different English terms across methods and discussion.
- Terms with no settled English equivalent
- 2. Both were handled with the established English term followed by the source term in parentheses at first use, as approved by the author.
- A drug named by its Chinese brand name
- Replaced with the international non-proprietary name, brand given once in parentheses.
- Units and reference ranges
- Two laboratory values converted to the journal’s convention, with the original values kept in a footnote.
- Glossary handed over
- All 41 terms with their agreed renderings, which keeps the authors’ next paper consistent with this one and reduces its cost.
Monolingual review, 41 changes1 structural issue flagged, not changed
- Purpose of this tab
- A report that lists only changes suggests the first translation was poor, which it was not. Recording what was correct lets you judge the service on substance rather than on the number of changes.
- The first translation, overall
- Accurate in substance across 5,400 words, with three findings affected and sixty other revisions that were improvements rather than corrections.
- Where the reviser was overruled
- 2. The translator’s original rendering was better in both cases. A revision stage in which the reviser always prevails is a second draft rather than a check.
- What we did not do
- We did not restructure the discussion, add a limitation the authors had not written, adjust a claim, or change a number to make two places agree.
- Back-translation
- Not performed and not offered. This is a manuscript, not a patient-reported outcome instrument, and back-translation is not part of any translation standard.
- What was handed over
- The translation, the tracked revision file, this report, the query log, the 41-term glossary and a certificate naming both linguists.
Redacted extract · field, findings and every figure changedRevision report, as delivered
The revision tab shows the value of the service. Three of sixty-three revisions changed a finding: a hedge turned into an assertion, a dropped negation that reversed a result, and two transposed sample sizes. None is a language error, and none would be found by reading the English alone.
Authors often read the unchanged tab first. It records where the first translation was correct and the two places where the reviser was overruled.
Translation with editing · sample revision report
Chinese to English, oncology manuscript, 5,400 words
An illustrative, anonymised report showing the workflow and reporting format we deliver.
1Workflow for this project
| Stage | Who | What they did |
|---|---|---|
| Preparation | Project editor | Glossary agreed with the authors: 41 terms from their earlier English paper and the target journal’s conventions. Simplified Chinese source, US English target. |
| Translation | Translator, oncology background | Full translation, then a self-check — which ISO 17100 calls a check. Ambiguities marked as queries rather than resolved by guessing. |
| Revision | Second linguist | Bilingual examination of target against source. The step ISO 17100 requires and a single-translator service does not include. 63 revisions. |
| Review | Subject editor, monolingual | Read the English alone for the conventions of the field: register, idiom, structure within sections. 41 changes. |
| Verification | Project editor | Final check against the brief, the glossary and the journal’s formatting. Certificate issued naming both linguists. |
Note what is not in this workflow: back-translation. It is not part of any translation standard, including ISO 17100, 18587, 5060 and ASTM F2575, and belongs to the linguistic validation of patient-reported outcome instruments under the ISPOR task force method.
2Revision findings — the bilingual stage
| What the source said | First translation | As revised, and why |
|---|---|---|
| A construction meaning “it may be inferred that” | “This demonstrates that” | Restored to the hedge. Strength of claim altered in translation is the most consequential error in academic translation and is invisible to a monolingual reader. |
| “No significant difference was observed between groups” | “A difference was observed between groups” | A negation was dropped across a clause boundary. One word reversed the finding while the English remained fluent, and it was found only by reading the target against the source. |
| Arm 2 n=84, arm 3 n=91 | Arm 2 n=91, arm 3 n=84 | Transposed in the results narrative while the table beneath was correct. |
| An ambiguous methods sentence | Queried, not translated | The sentence could describe either the screening or the enrolment window. The authors resolved it in one email, which prevented a guess from becoming an error in a published methods section. |
| Ethics approval reference | Transliterated institution name | Replaced with the institution’s registered English name, verified on its website. |
| 59 further instances | — | Improvements rather than corrections: word choice, article use, tense consistency in the methods, preposition selection. All tracked. |
63 revisions, of which three changed a finding. This ratio is normal. Most of a reviser’s work is refinement, and the main value lies in the few places where the translation said something the source did not.
3Terminology
| Item | Handling |
|---|---|
| Glossary size | 41 terms, agreed in writing before translation began. |
| Source of the glossary | The authors’ earlier English-language paper plus the target journal’s field conventions. Building the glossary from prior work keeps a series of papers consistent. |
| Inconsistencies in the first draft | 7 terms rendered more than one way across methods and discussion. |
| Terms with no settled English equivalent | 2. Established English term plus the source term in parentheses at first use — approved by the authors. |
| Drug names | One Chinese brand name replaced with the international non-proprietary name. |
| Units and reference ranges | Converted to the journal’s convention, originals kept in a footnote. |
| Handover | The full glossary, with the reason for each contested rendering. |
4Register — the monolingual review
| Finding | Count | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| Calqued structures: grammatical, unidiomatic | 19 | Topic-comment structures carried across, and long pre-modifying chains English places after the noun. Restructured. |
| Over-hedging beyond the source | 11 | Reduced to the source’s own level of caution. Less caution would overstate the findings, and more would suggest a lack of confidence. |
| Sentences over 45 words in the methods | 6 | Split where they contained more than one procedure. |
| Discussion restating the introduction | 1 section | Flagged, not changed. The paper belongs to the authors, and rewriting a section would exceed the brief. |
| Unusual constructions that work in English | Left unchanged | Where the authors’ emphasis works in English, it was kept. |
5What we did not do
| Not done | Why |
|---|---|
| Restructure the discussion | Flagged as an observation. Structural rewriting is substantive editing, priced separately, and doing it within a translation would change what the authors published. |
| Add or strengthen a claim | The translation carries the source’s claims at the source’s strength. |
| Reconcile two numbers that disagreed | Queried, not fixed. Which value is correct is a matter for the authors’ data. |
| Back-translate | Back-translation is not a translation standard and does not apply to a manuscript. |
| Overrule the translator by default | In 2 cases the change was reverted after discussion. This is recorded, because a revision stage in which the reviser always prevails is a second draft. |
6What was handed over
| Artefact | Why it matters afterwards |
|---|---|
| The translation, clean and tracked | Every revision is visible and can be rejected, so you approve the final translation. |
| This revision report | Lets you assess a translation you cannot read against its source. |
| The query log | Every ambiguity we declined to resolve, with your answer beside it. |
| The 41-term glossary | The glossary belongs to you. It reduces the cost of your next paper and keeps your work consistent. |
| The certificate of translation | Naming both linguists, free on request. It is not a sworn translation and not a journal requirement; we found no major publisher that requires one. |
This report does not claim that the translation is perfect or that the paper will be accepted. ISO 5060:2024, the standard for evaluating translation output, is built on error typologies, weights and severity levels, which assume that errors occur. Our commitment is specific: if you are not satisfied with the quality of the translation, we re-translate it at no additional cost, within the agreed scope.
Benefits
Benefits of Independent Second-Linguist Revision
A single-linguist translation relies on the translator checking their own work. Independent revision adds the following.
Scope and Pricing Tool
Translation Scope and Pricing Estimator
Enter the document type, direction, language and length. The estimator prices the project and flags two common problems: what “certified” means where you are sending the document, and how many EU languages a regulated document requires.
01
The workflow, the price, and what “certified” means where you are sending it.
Runs in your browser · nothing sent anywhereWhat this quote covers and does not cover. It does not promise a flawless translation. ISO 5060:2024, which governs the evaluation of translated output, uses an error typology with weights, severity levels and rules for counting repeated errors, which assumes that errors occur. Our commitment has a defined remedy: if you are not satisfied with the quality of the translation, we re-translate your paper at no additional cost, within the agreed scope. Every rate above includes revision by a second qualified linguist against the source, which is the ISO 17100 structure and the reason this is not a $0.05 service.
Sources, standards and versions
Packages
Translation Packages and Per-Word Pricing
Translation with independent revision is priced at $0.12 a word, and the word limit for each package is stated beside it.
Abstracts, conference papers and letters
Short documents that still receive the full workflow
From $240up to 2,000 words · $0.12/word
Delivery 6–8 business days
- ✓Translated by a qualified translator in your subject
- ✓Revised by a second linguist against the source
- ✓Reviewed in English alone by an editor in your field
- ✓Glossary agreed first and handed over
- ✓Certificate of translation on request, no charge
Free re-translation within the agreed scope if the quality falls short.
View a sample Select ShortA full research manuscript
Journal articles and reports, our most common projects
From $600up to 5,000 words · 2 revision rounds
Delivery 8–12 business days
- ✓Everything in Short, at manuscript scale
- ✓The revision report: every change, with the reason
- ✓The query log, recording every ambiguity we did not resolve by guessing
- ✓Terminology reconciled across methods, results and discussion
- ✓Formatting to the target journal
- ✓Free re-editing after your own revisions, within 60 days and within the agreed scope
- ✓Unlimited questions to your translator and reviser, free
Where a document has been machine-translated, the appropriate service is post-editing instead.
View a sample Select PaperBooks, dossiers and complete theses
Long or multi-author work, where consistency requires the most attention
$0.12 a wordabove 5,000 words · quoted on the document
Delivery From 15 business days
- ✓Everything in Paper, across the whole document
- ✓One glossary governing every chapter and every translator
- ✓A named project editor start to finish
- ✓Consistency pass across the finished whole
- ✓Sample translation of 1,000 words before the project is agreed
Where a document is intended for several markets, each market version is a separate deliverable.
View a sample Select Long formA patient-reported outcome instrument
PRO, ClinRO, ObsRO and PerfO measures, where the method is fixed
From $2,900per instrument, per language
Delivery 25–35 business days
- ✓Two forward translations and reconciliation
- ✓Back-translation — included only in this package
- ✓Back-translation review and harmonisation across languages
- ✓Cognitive debriefing with target-language respondents
- ✓A full validation report for your submission
Carried out to the ISPOR task force method. We do not offer this process for ordinary manuscripts.
View a sample Select ValidationOptional additions for any package: post-editing of machine or AI output, priced separately under ISO 18587; journal formatting after translation; translation of figures, tables and captions where artwork must be rebuilt; and market-specific regulatory translation into the languages a Member State requires. Re-editing after your own revisions is free within 60 days, within the agreed scope.
Quality Assurance
Our Service Commitments and Limitations
Our commitment states the standard of work, its limits and the remedy available, followed by a clear list of what we do not claim.
Our revision commitment
Free Re-Translation If Agreed Requirements Are Not Met
The commitment is specific, has a defined remedy and is within our control.
01
Two linguists on every project
A translator and an independent reviser who checks the target against the source are the minimum on every project at every price.
02
Ambiguity comes back as a query
Where the source could mean two things, you decide. We do not resolve ambiguities silently or leave them unmarked.
03
Claims kept at their original strength
Where the source hedges, the translation hedges. A translation that strengthens a claim would publish something you did not write.
04
Our errors corrected at our cost
If we make an error, such as a mistranslation, a dropped negation or a term that departs from the agreed glossary, we correct it free of charge and inform you first.
What we do not promise. We do not promise 100% accuracy or 100% quality, because no standard supports such a claim and ISO 5060:2024 assesses this work through an error typology with weights and severity levels. We do not promise journal acceptance, which is the editor’s decision. We cannot provide a sworn translation in jurisdictions that appoint sworn translators through the courts. We do not hold ISO 17100 certification, and we state that we follow its structure. We do not offer back-translation as general quality assurance, because it belongs to linguistic validation and is not part of any translation standard. We do not accept a language pair we cannot staff with two qualified linguists, and we do not present machine output as a translation.
We will tell you when you need post-editing instead
If your document has already been machine-translated, post-editing it sometimes costs more than translating from the source, because a fluent but incorrect sentence takes longer to fix than a new translation takes to produce. We review a sample and tell you which applies before quoting. Where the machine output is good enough for light post-editing, we will tell you that too, at a third of the price.
Confidentiality of your unpublished work
We sign a non-disclosure agreement before any material is shared, and translators, revisers and project staff are bound by internal confidentiality agreements. Your source, translation and glossary are held under the UK GDPR on access-controlled systems within a quality management system certified to ISO 9001:2015, cert. H3CR9TCU20251212INDQM10N. They are kept only as long as the project requires and are never used to train any system. Your glossary and translation memory belong to you and are returned at the end rather than pooled for other clients.
Client Stories
Client Feedback on Translation Projects
Testimonials are paraphrased from client feedback.
“The reviser found a dose unit that had come across wrong. Three of us had read the English and none had the Chinese open beside it.”
“We had already run it through a machine and asked for a polish. You told us it would cost more than starting again, and why.”
“Our distributor said we needed all twenty-four EU languages. We needed four, and the table saying so took ten minutes.”
FAQs
Frequently Asked Questions About Academic Translation
If your question is not answered here, ask an expert. No quote is required.
Send the complete source document, name the target journal and tell us whether the document has been machine-translated. The work follows six stages: terminology agreed before drafting, translation by a qualified translator in your subject, revision against the source by a second linguist, monolingual review by an editor in your discipline, formatting to the journal, and final verification.
A 6,000-word paper typically costs $720 and takes six to ten business days, and you receive the translation, the glossary and, on request, a certificate. Choose the target journal early, because it sets word limits, reference style and abstract headings, and applying these to a finished translation takes longer than translating into them.
The rate covers a second qualified linguist who checks every sentence against the source.
A cheaper quote usually covers a single translator checking their own work. That is a different service: a translator cannot reliably find the places where they misread the source, which is the reviser’s role.
Rates of $0.01 to $0.03 a word usually reflect raw machine output or light post-editing. That is a legitimate service with its own standard, which we offer as post-editing, and we do not call it translation.
No, we cannot guarantee either.
On accuracy: ISO 5060:2024, the international standard for evaluating translation output, uses an error typology with error-type weights, severity levels and rules for counting repeated errors. A standard designed to weight and count errors assumes that errors occur.
On acceptance: the journal editor decides on the basis of novelty, design, fit and significance, and no supplier controls that decision.
Our commitment is specific and within our control: if you are not satisfied with the quality of the translation, we re-translate it within the agreed scope at no additional cost.
A certified translation is a property of the document rather than a qualification held by the translator, and the requirements differ by country.
In the United States, 8 CFR 103.2(b)(3) asks only for the translator’s own certification of completeness and accuracy. The United Kingdom has no sworn-translator system, and a dated, signed certificate naming the translator is the norm. Civil-law jurisdictions such as Spain, Germany and France appoint sworn translators through the courts, and we will tell you clearly when your recipient needs one, because we cannot provide it.
Note also that ISO 17100 certifies organisations, not individuals, so no translator is “ISO 17100 certified”, and no major publisher we found requires a certificate for a journal submission. We provide one free on request.
It depends on the quality of the machine output, which is why we ask.
Machine output reads fluently, but its errors are hard to see: grammatical English that inverts a negation, drops a hedge or renders a unit incorrectly. A translator who is not told the text is machine output corrects at sentence level, where these errors are not visible.
When the translator is told, the work follows ISO 18587, a separate standard from ISO 17100, which excludes machine translation with post-editing. Full post-editing costs $0.06 a word against $0.12, so when the output is acceptable it costs half as much. When the output is poor, translating afresh is faster and cheaper, and we tell you which applies after reviewing a sample.
Not as a general quality check, because it does not measure translation quality. Back-translation is not part of any translation standard, including ISO 17100, 18587 and 5060.
It belongs in the linguistic validation of patient-reported outcome measures, as one stage in the ISPOR task force method: forward translation by two independent translators, reconciliation, back-translation, review, cognitive debriefing with target-language patients, and proofreading. There it serves a clear purpose, because the instrument must measure the same construct in every language.
Applied to an ordinary manuscript, it is misleading: a back-translation that differs from the source often indicates a good idiomatic translation rather than a poor one. If you need linguistic validation, it is a separate service at $2,900 per language per instrument.
Related Services
Related Editing and Translation Services
A translated manuscript often needs further editing before submission, and a machine-translated document requires a different service under a different standard.
1BEFORE OR INSTEADwhat the document may need first
Post editing of machine outputISO 18587, full and light, at $0.06 and $0.035 a word. Scientific editingFor documents where the argument, rather than the language, needs work.2AFTER TRANSLATIONgetting it submission-ready
Manuscript editingJournal style, structure and the submission pack. ProofreadingA final read before submission, at $0.025 a word.3THE WIDER SERVICEeverything else in this section
Editing and translationAll seven editing services, with the scope of each. Thesis editingScoped to your institution’s policy, with the limits stated.Insights
Further Reading on Academic Translation
Request a Free 500-Word Translation of Your Document
A qualified translator translates the sample and a second linguist revises it, as in the full project, within two business days. You can review the register, terminology handling and treatment of difficult passages before you commit.