Independent scientific and methodological review.

I provide independent reviews for projects built on complex empirical, theoretical, or mechanistic claims—focused on claim clarity, assumptions, evidence–inference alignment, and plausible failure modes.

Former academic researcher • Peer reviewer • Mechanistic modeling specialist

Email to request a scoped review discussion See deliverables

Not strategy Not endorsement Written documentation Audit-ready clarity

What I do

Claim → assumptions → inference

Clarify what a claim actually asserts (and what it doesn’t).
Surface key assumptions—explicit and implicit.
Stress-test evidence → inference alignment.
Identify plausible failure modes and decision-relevant uncertainties.

The goal is not certainty, but clarity under scrutiny.

This is

Structured, written second-opinion review
Explicit about limits and uncertainty
Readable by technical and non-technical stakeholders
Documentation you can retain as a record

This is not

Business/market/investment advice
Endorsement or advocacy
Ghostwriting or promotional copy
A substitute for running studies/experiments

When this is useful

Decision support

Pre-funding or pre-investment technical review
Internal validation of research-driven projects
Grant or proposal vetting
Policy- or compliance-relevant analysis
Litigation-adjacent or expert-style methodological review

In many cases, the value is identifying weaknesses before they become public, costly, or reputationally damaging.

Deliverables

Tiered depth

Clients receive a written review memo prepared for both technical and non-technical readers. Reviews explicitly separate facts, assumptions, evidence, and inference.

Executive Review (3–5 pages) High-level assessment of claim clarity, core assumptions, major risks, and decision-relevant uncertainties.

Standard Review (8–12 pages) Detailed analysis of assumptions, methods, inference, and failure modes for internal diligence or advisory use.

Comprehensive Review (15–20 pages) Full methodological stress-testing and documentation for legal, regulatory, or high-stakes institutional contexts.

If desired, I can also provide a one-page Decision Brief distilled from the memo for fast executive review.

Engagement scope and pricing are determined after initial review of materials. Reviews are fixed-fee and scaled to complexity, not hourly.

Independence

Scope + documentation

How engagements are scoped

Scope is defined in advance.
Conclusions are not pre-specified.
Findings are documented accurately and in full in the written review.
How the review is used afterward is the client’s responsibility.

Relationship to ERN Institute

I am the founder of ERN Institute (scholarly publishing and research infrastructure). This review service is offered independently and is not conducted on behalf of ERN Institute or its journals.

Contact

Scoped inquiries only

If you’re considering an independent scientific or methodological review, email me with: (1) what you’re evaluating, (2) what decision it informs, and (3) what materials are available.

Email: john@johnggrundy.com

If it’s not a fit, I’ll say so quickly.