I will review the statistics in your research paper before submission

Your reviewer will check your statistics. I'd rather do it first.

I'm a PhD candidate in astrophysics. My own work lives or dies on whether the error bars are defensible, so I read papers the way a referee does: looking for the thing that gets a manuscript sent back.

What I check:

Is the test appropriate for your data, and are its assumptions actually met?

Are your error bars right? (Correlated data almost always has underestimated uncertainties: this is the single most common problem I find.)

Multiple comparisons: are you testing many hypotheses without correcting?

Sample size and power: can your data support the claim you're making?

Selection effects and missing data: who is not in your sample, and why?

Over-interpretation: where the text claims more than the numbers show.

What you get: a written report with every finding ranked by severity: what a reviewer will definitely catch, what they might, and what's fine. Each one with a concrete suggestion, not just criticism.

I'm not a native English speaker, and I don't edit language: this is about the statistics. Send me your draft (or just the methods and results sections) and tell me where you plan to submit.