Your draft assignment will be read and critiqued by an academic subject-matter expert.
Evaluation of Arguments
Your arguments and statements shall be critically evaluated to determine whether they are descriptive or explanatory, and whether they demonstrate evidence of analysis or synthesis. Overly-descriptive sections will be highlighted, with suggestions for developing more nuanced analysis/synthesis of arguments, ideas or data.
Use of Sources
Your claims and statements substantiated with evidence shall be critiqued. Your use of sources (via proper referencing) demonstrates your research, reading, and understanding of the subject. Your Academic Supervisor shall critique your use of sources and the extent to which they appropriately support your arguments.
Structure & Logic
The structure and logic of your paper is a key marking criteria in summative assessments, indicative of your logic and level of understanding of the subject. Unprofessional or illogical assignment structures will lose marks and fail in effectively presenting an argument. Your Academic Supervisor shall critique your structure, providing comments on how to enhance your structure, reconsider your logic and more effectively demonstrate your understanding.
Identification of Major Issues
Your Academic Supervisor will offer a comprehensive review of your entire paper within the context of its subject and assignment requirements. Any major issues, deficiencies or causes for concern shall be highlighted and commented upon, with suggestions for improvement. On the positive side, if we perceive an opportunity to strengthen your paper and gain higher marks, we will clearly identify this to you.
Any document(s) submitted for Supervisor Feedback shall be returned to you completed to an excellent standard.
The OAS Standards represent the objective measure by which we deem your document ready to be returned to you.
They are developed and reviewed in collaboration with our partners at the Office for Academic Integrity, and informed by academic research.
In the rare event of a dispute, the following OAS Standards shall be consulted.
Quality Control Theme
Minimum Number of Comments
A Minimum of Eight (8) Critical Comments Per Page (averaged across all pages).
|Evidence of Identifying Weaknesses in the Paper.
Use of Sources
|Evidence of Critiquing Use of Academic Sources.
Evidence of Critiquing Context and Substantiated Claims.
|Logic and Structure
|Evidence of Critiquing Underlying Logic and Structure of Argument.
Adherence to Client Instructions
|Evidence that Reasonable Client Instructions have been Followed.
Please note: the OAS Standards are specific to each Service Type.
To support student progression in a logical and progressive manner, the research-informed OAS Student Pathway™ can help you identify what phase of academic work you are currently in.
The Office for Academic Support leads the way when it comes to editorial standards. Our Academic Editors range from PhD and post-doc researchers to retired professors and published authors.
All OAS Academic Editors must regularly complete proprietary Quality Assurance Assessments.
This rigorous approach to quality ensures that the OAS Standards are always met, and that the quality of our editorial and tutorial work is constantly reinforced.
Despite these safeguards, the Office for Academic Support also implements a peer review system. At the discretion of the Quality Control (QC) team, the document you submit is liable to be checked and reviewed by a second, more senior academic.
This not only gives your document the benefit of a second review, but it also enables our more senior academics to audit and train other academics.
This peer review system forms an integral part of our Quality Control system, providing training opportunities throughout our network of academics, whilst concurrently providing clients with a double-blind review of their work, thereby enhancing quality.
Papers which are descriptive and lack analysis fail to score highly in summative academic assessments. Statements that are explanatory and which show evidence of analysis (taking data, ideas or arguments apart) or synthesis (i.e. bringing data, ideas or arguments together) are more likely to generate new knowledge or understanding, resulting in higher marks. Your Academic Supervisor will provide feedback on the statements you use to construct your argument, encouraging you towards analysis or synthesis of ideas. Our clients learn novel approaches to argument formulation, which can be deployed in future assignments and papers.
Substantiating Claims with Sources
Your use of academic sources to substantiate your claims and support your arguments is essential in conveying to your departmental supervisor or publisher the extent to which you understand the academic literature. Unsubstantiated claims – where no sources are referenced, or where sources are inappropriately deployed – not only risk losing marks, but also risk undermining your entire argument and thesis. Your Academic Supervisor shall critically determine the extent to which you have effectively substantiated your claims, helping you to strengthen your research and arguments.
Having your assignment or manuscript sense-checked by an experienced academic is an invaluable opportunity for gaining a professional second opinion. This can not only save you precious marks in summative assessments, but also facilitates your learning process. The Supervisor Feedback service ensures your work shall critically reviewed prior to your formal submission, with factual inaccuracies or ambiguities highlighted. This helps prevent lost marks, whilst identifying opportunities to gain more marks.
Supporting the Learner Process
The Supervisor Feedback service is developed from extensive academic research, and is designed to encourage the learning process by showing clients more appropriate methods and approaches. Our pragmatic approach incorporates kinetic, observational and mirror-neuron principles to learning, with an emphasis on SLA and linguistic competencies.
You are viewing the Service Details page for Supervisor Feedback. You can submit your paper for multiple rounds of feedback before you submit your assignment (for summative assessment) or manuscript (for peer review/publication).
After you have applied your supervisor's feedback, it is recommended that you submit your paper for Academic Proofreading & Editing. If your paper has fundamental issues in terms of its structure, it is recommended that you consider using the Assignment Structure service.
The Office for Academic Support has conducted extensive research into the needs and progression of students and scholars. We have developed the OAS Student Pathway™ - a proprietary framework distinguishing the different stages in the ambitious student’s journey.
Each stage of the OAS Student Pathway™ focuses on the assignment requirements and learning goals of that specific phase. Clients who follow the OAS Student Pathway™ report a more effective learning journey, greater confidence in future academic assignments, an uplift in their final summative grades.
You can find out more about the OAS Student Pathway™ here.
The Office for Academic Support aims to help our clients move forward. That’s why we established out mission as Turning Students Into Scholars®.
We want to support clients who are ambitious to be published – whether to begin their career as an Early Career Researcher or to simply strengthen their CV. We provide opportunities for clients who have submitted theoretical or empirical papers to submit their manuscripts for peer review.
Please view the OAS Scholars Pathway™ here for more details.
Your internet connection is broken,
we miss you so much already!