Piperic
similar sites
‹ ProfileAI Report

Sites similar to focuseditorialservices.com

Focuseditorialservices alternatives & similar sites

Dr Tess Millar | Focus Editorial Services – editing and proofreading — 18 websites ranked by shared content topics, category and on-page relevance.

Each result shows its full tech stack, contacts and AI-policy — not just a name · Browse all sites in Publishing Industry →

DomainMatchTitleCountry/LangCategoryAI filesContactAI-protection
brightoneditorial.com 75 match
2 shared topics
Brighton Editorial | Copy editing and proofreading en publishing-industryWix robotsllmsaihumans emailphone none
leehornbrook.com 73 match
2 shared topics
The Writing Prof Editorial Services – EDITOR | WRITING COACH en publishing-industryWordPress robotsllmsaihumans emailphone none
lazarediting.com 72 match
2 shared topics
Lazar Editing "ProEdits: Professional Proofreading and Editing Services" en publishing-industryWordPress robotsllmsaihumans emailphone none
freelanceeditorial.co.uk 72 match
2 shared topics
freelance editorial development, copy editing & proofreading United Kingdom en publishing-industry robotsllmsaihumans emailphone none
deftedits.com 72 match
2 shared topics
Deft Edits – Deft copyediting and proofreading en publishing-industryWordPress robotsllmsaihumans emailphone none
centralediting.com.au 71 match
2 shared topics
Professional editing and proofreading for business and government Australia en publishing-industryWordPress robotsllmsaihumans emailphone none
triplemeditorial.com 70 match
2 shared topics
Triple M Editorial Services, LLC en publishing-industryWordPress robotsllmsaihumans emailphone none
editingeye.co.uk 70 match
2 shared topics
Editing Services from a Trained and Experienced Proofreader - Editing Eye United Kingdom en publishing-industryWordPress robotsllmsaihumans emailphone none
4eyezinkeditorial.com 69 match
2 shared topics
Home - 4 Eyez Ink Editorial Services en publishing-industryWordPressWooCommerce robotsllmsaihumans emailphone none
fontandpen.com 69 match
2 shared topics
Editing Canada, academic editing Canada, Proofreading en publishing-industry robotsllmsaihumans emailphone none
broadeditorial.com 69 match
2 shared topics
Broad Editorial Writing & Publishing Services en publishing-industryWordPressWooCommerce robotsllmsaihumans emailphone none
kathleenfraser.ca 69 match
2 shared topics
Kathleen Fraser – Editorial Services, Writing and Communications Management: I can help you say what you want to say. Canada en publishing-industryWordPress robotsllmsaihumans emailphone none
crsproofreading.co.uk 68 match
2 shared topics
CRS Proofreading | Welcome | Professional proofreading, copyediting and transcription services United Kingdom en publishing-industryWordPress robotsllmsaihumans emailphone none
truepenediting.com 68 match
2 shared topics
True Pen Editing – Copyediting | Proofreading | Book Design en publishing-industryWordPress robotsllmsaihumans emailphone none
brionyneilson.com 67 match
2 shared topics
Briony Neilson – Briony Neilson Editorial and Manuscript Services – assisting writers and academic researchers through all stages of the writing and publishing process en publishing-industryWordPressWooCommerce robotsllmsaihumans emailphone none
nadakai.com 67 match
2 shared topics
Editorial Services for Research Institutions, Policy Organizations & NGOs | NADAKAI India~ en publishing-industry robotsllmsaihumans emailphone none
deandrakeproofreading.com 67 match
2 shared topics
DEAN DRAKE | PROOFREADING - Home en publishing-industryWeebly robotsllmsaihumans emailphone none
englisheditingservices.co.uk 67 match
2 shared topics
English Editing Services United Kingdom en publishing-industryWordPress robotsllmsaihumans emailphone none

How the match score works

Each match is a 0–100 similarity score — the higher it is, the more two sites resemble one another. It’s computed automatically from our own crawl data (never from what a site says about itself) by combining several independent signals, so a high score means several of them point the same way:

No single signal decides the result — they’re blended together. Treat the score as a way to rank candidates rather than an absolute percentage; the chips on each result show which signals contributed.