Scientific review for marine and dive content
Most dive and travel companies now draft articles with AI tools. The writing is fluent. The facts often aren’t.
I read your articles as a marine scientist would, check every claim and every reference against the published record, and tell your writers exactly what to change.
What goes wrong
These are the problems I find most often. None of them is visible to a copywriter. All of them are visible to a marine biologist reading your page, and to the experienced divers you most want to book.
- References that look real but don’t match the published paper: the wrong authors, an invented title, a volume number that doesn’t exist.
- Statistics stretched beyond what the source supports, such as a figure for one group of corals applied to all corals, or a regional total applied to one island group.
- Conservation status and legal protections stated without a source, or out of date.
- Species, behaviour or seasons described from another ocean, presented as if they apply to your destination.
- Close-encounter descriptions with no guidance on distance, touching or chasing.
What you receive
Each article comes back word for word, with my notes placed at the exact point each issue occurs. Every note is ranked, explained in plain language, and gives replacement wording your writer can paste straight in. Here is a short example.
Guests can swim right up to the mantas as they feed, an experience few ever forget. Reef mantas (Mobula alfredi) are listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List.
Should fix: encounter guidance missingA reader could take this as permission to approach feeding mantas closely.
Replace with: “Mantas often pass within a few metres of divers. Stay low, keep your distance and let them choose how close to come. Never touch or chase them.”
Verified: conservation statusReef manta, Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List. Correct as written.
Optional: name the placeSaying where and when your guests see reef mantas makes the paragraph more useful, and harder for a competitor to copy.
Notes are ranked must fix, should fix or optional. Must-fix items are errors of fact or safety that should not be published.
The reference list is checked too. Every citation is opened and compared with the real publication. Wrong ones are corrected; ones that cannot be found are removed or replaced with a source that supports the claim.
How it works
- You send the drafts, as Google Docs or Word files.
- I review them in batches and return each one annotated.
- Your team makes the changes.
- I check the edited versions before they go live.
- The finished articles carry my reviewer byline.
The reviewer byline
Once an article has been corrected and rechecked, it can carry this line, linked to how I review:
My name appears only on content I have checked in its final form. If an article is changed after review, I check the new version before the byline stays on it.
Who it’s for
Liveaboard operators, dive resorts, expedition cruise companies, dive travel publishers and training agencies: anyone publishing about marine life under their own brand.
Fees
Quoted per project. Email me with roughly how many articles you have and what they cover, and I’ll reply with a quote.