bioRxiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.64898/2026.10.05.756087

Careers in Scientific Editing: Results from the 2024 Scientific Editors Network (ScENe) Survey

Aldrich, H.·Barr, J.·James, B.·Lawrence, R.·Mayerle, M.·Sutton, A.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Funding and publishing scientific research has become increasingly competitive, highlighting a growing need for clear and accurate scientific communication. Scientific editors are professionals who help ensure that grant proposals and research manuscripts meet the standards of funding agencies and peer-reviewed journals while effectively communicating research significance to diverse audiences. However, detailed information characterizing the scientific editing profession is scarce. While some organizations have conducted salary surveys, to our knowledge, no comprehensive survey of the scientific editing field has been conducted. Here, we report findings from a 2024 comprehensive survey of 132 scientific editors. We collected data on demographics and education, career experience and current employment, skills and types of editing, and outcomes and satisfaction. Our data reveal that scientific editors have homogenous demographic characteristics but considerable variability in job titles, employment mechanisms, and career pathways. As the responsibilities of many scientific editors, including supporting proposal development, applying best practices in grantsmanship, and identifying strategies to enhance competitiveness for research funding, overlap with those of research development professionals, our findings provide considerations for further incorporating or defining the role of scientific editors within research development offices. Our results also suggest avenues for scientific editors to start or advance their careers. We anticipate that our results will serve as a foundation for discussions on the future directions of the scientific editing profession as well as areas for future research and professional development.

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Aldrich, H., Barr, J., James, B., Lawrence, R., Mayerle, M., Sutton, A.. 2026-10-08. Careers in Scientific Editing: Results from the 2024 Scientific Editors Network (ScENe) Survey. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.10.05.756087

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Preprint solicitation as a natural experiment in scholarly publishing

Preprinting is a growing and increasingly recognized mechanism for scientific communication and productivity and a way to facilitate global access to science. The interplay of preprinting practices with formal peer-reviewed publication is an open question that is now tractable to targeted analysis. Here, we take advantage of nearly a decade of preprint solicitation at Proceedings B to address this question, which offers a quasi-experimental setting for comparing outcomes for solicited preprints and traditionally submitted manuscripts. We used submission records from 15,368 manuscripts from 2018-2024 to assess whether preprint solicitation affects acceptance rates, journal scope, author geographic diversity, and post-publication uptake. Solicited manuscripts were accepted at nearly twice the rate of traditional submissions and received more downloads and citations after publication. Submission topics were broadly similar between the two routes, though solicited manuscripts showed marginally greater subject diversity. Geographic disparities favoring the Global North persisted, but acceptance rates for solicited manuscripts converged across regions, narrowing the gap seen in traditional submissions. These findings extend earlier work on this initiative and indicate that editor-driven solicitation can identify high-quality preprints, broaden geographic representation, and increase research visibility, offering a replicable model for journals seeking to diversify authorship while maintaining editorial standards.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2026

Biology Undergraduates Use of AI-Enabled Feedback to Revise Scientific Writing: Recipience and Barriers

Background: Instructors and education researchers are increasingly developing feedback with the assistance of generative AI, which we refer to as AI-enabled feedback, yet we do not know whether established understandings of feedback uptake and effectiveness apply similarly in AI-mediated contexts. This makes the recipience of AI-enabled feedback a central concern to understanding how to best support students in developing their scientific writing skills. This study examined how two teams of undergraduate biology students used AI-enabled feedback to revise their scientific writing, and the extent to which their revisions addressed that feedback. The teams revised their research proposal drafts after receiving AI-enabled feedback developed by their instructor with the aid of a custom AI tool. Results: Our findings show that AI-enabled feedback prompted actionable revision across both teams. Each team addressed approximately half of the feedback comments, indicating comparable levels of uptake despite their differing approaches to revision. We observed that both teams were inconsistent in providing the additional information and reasoning requested in the feedback, and they struggled to address comments requiring self-evaluation. Taken together, we see that students often addressed the more easily actionable parts of AI-enabled feedback while omitting more demanding revisions. Conclusions: These findings provide behavioral evidence of how students used AI-enabled feedback to revise their scientific writing. The observed patterns suggest that the content of AI-enabled feedback supported meaningful revision, while limitations in students agency, strategies, and volition likely shaped their implementation of comments. Although the degree of uptake observed in this study is encouraging, it is unlikely that a single application of generative AI within the feedback process will resolve all the challenges associated with feedback uptake.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2026

The Impact of Small-group Education on Student Wellbeing in Undergraduate Biology: a Student Perspective on Self-Determination Theory

Alarming reports about mental health have raised awareness of student wellbeing in STEM Education. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) implies that wellbeing can be improved by fulfilling the needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. Educational design elements such as small-group teaching, peer feedback and offering a low-stakes practice environment can help fulfill these SDT needs. These elements were applied in a new academic skills course in our undergraduate Biology program. Here, we investigated how this affected the students sense of autonomy, competence and relatedness, and whether this was related to wellbeing. First, a survey among 48 students confirmed that student wellbeing is positively correlated to SDT fulfillment. Next, group interviews with students revealed that wellbeing is mostly dependent on relatedness, which is facilitated through small-group teaching in the first semester. Furthermore, students reported that (1) relatedness evolves through bonding with peers over the shared experience of struggle, (2) competence requires (peer) feedback and opportunities for growth, especially in laboratory coursework and (3) a structured, low-stakes environment supports competence, but without optimal challenge, also undermines a sense of autonomy. This illustrates how students perceive the effects of small-group educational activities on their wellbeing through the lens of Self-Determination Theory.

scientific communication and education↗