Loading…
Pick your application target (school + graduate school), then a professor — choose one of the three ways below.
Research plans require at least 400 characters for review; recommended 1,500–5,000, limit 15,000
Choose the review's output language and how deep the review goes.
Most applicants can't see their own draft's holes — where the logic breaks, where the literature is thin, where the method is vague is hardest for the writer to spot, and it usually surfaces only when a professor or interviewer catches it on the spot, too late to fix. Rather than betting on one shot of human feedback, let an unsparing reviewer annotate and demonstrate the rewrite paragraph by paragraph, and clear the flaws before you submit.
The question you raise up front — does it still hold in the method and conclusion, or has it quietly drifted? Reviewers trace this single thread first; once the question shifts mid-way, nothing downstream lines up.
Is each paragraph's conclusion the next one's premise? Any broken links, jumps, or circular claims in the causal chain? Logical gaps are hardest to see in your own work — and the first thing a reviewer grabs.
Any key works missing, does coverage reach recent years, is anything cited just to cite? Thin or dated references tell the professor you've never truly entered this field.
Where the data comes from, whether the sample suffices, whether it finishes in a year or two — we rehearse this interrogation for you. A vague method is the weak point most easily chained into follow-up questions at interview.
We check fit against the professor's recent papers, KAKENHI projects, and keywords — not the stale blurb on the official site. A misaligned plan is the first to be cut at outreach and review.
Is the だ・である register consistent throughout, the honorific level steady, the length, sections, and citation format on spec? A wobbling style or a missed requirement loses points on form before content is even weighed.