What is Scientific Editing? What is a Scientific Editor?

Many scientists and scholars think of language editing as fixing up spelling and grammar (i.e., proofreading). So when they’re looking for an editor for their scientific manuscript for journals, preprints, or conferences, they think any English speaker can do the job.

That can be a big mistake!

Non-native English-speaking researchers usually need an inner-circle native English-speaking scientific editor trained in scientific editing. So then, what is scientific editing?

Having trained as a scientific editor and writer, as well as an editor and writer in conventional journalism, I see some distinct differences that set scientific editors apart. Some are counterintuitive and even a bit surprising.

OK, so what is scientific editing and what are scientific editors already?!

Scientific (or academic) editing is editing using a combination of skilled language editing + expertise in specific fields of science + being knowledgeable about the scholarly publication process. Language editing is a professional job; scientific editing combines language editing with STEM and HSS knowledge and publication industry knowledge. This is why scientific editing services may/should cost more than language editing or proofreading.

Scientific editors, in addition to language editing, are editors who are skilled at structuring manuscripts and all their components, such as abstracts, figures, tables, and references. They also know the steps of the manuscript submission and peer-review process. Some full-time scientific editors also pass rigorous testing to attain a qualification such as Board-Certified Editor in the Life Sciences (BELS – ELS qualification), or in the UK from the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP; formerly the Society for Editors and Proofreaders [SfEP]).

Scientific editors are not proofreaders, but they can be

Asking a scientific editor to proofread a paper, to “polish” the English, is similar to asking a dentist to give you a cleaning, or a chef to make you a grilled cheese sandwich. Of course, they can do it, really well, but it’s just a small part of their skill set.

Dentists usually have their assistants do the cleaning. And a line cook can handle the grilled cheese. True scientific editors are language experts, so proofreading in any topic is no problem. It’s actually fun when the topic is interesting!

I can proofread anything from chemistry to genetics, though I wouldn’t normally do intensive scientific editing in those topics because I’m not a subject-matter expert in those fields. I specialize in health sciences and social sciences. So, proofreading is totally doable for us, but it’s just part of what we can do.

PhDs and MDs sometimes aren‘t good scientific editors

Those who hold a PhD, MD, or another terminal (highest level) academic degree have studied their topic intensively for years upon years. They’re experts in chemistry, cell biology, internal medicine, and so on.

This has no direct connection with their English language ability. Why? Because they didn’t specifically and intensively study English.

Scientific editors, good ones at least, must have outstanding language skills. They may not actually be PhDs or MDs, but they have high academic knowledge in a number of areas. They know how to edit and they know what journal editors themselves want to see.

PhDs and MDs will have a strong grasp of terminology and methodology, but they may know little about academic publication or ethics, may know little about presenting data and conducting literature reviews, and they may have poor spelling and grammar.

When searching for an editor, many client scholars make the mistake of demanding a PhD or medical doctor in their field. If they are lucky enough to find one who is also a qualified editor, well, they’re lucky.

Great scientific editors might actually be humanities majors

A common trait among those who majored in English, linguistics, journalism, etc. is their advanced ability in English. They are language technicians and artisans. They should be. It’s what they studied for.

Those who had other scholarly interests often make excellent scientific editors when they commit themselves to it. Some of the best clinical, engineering, and earth sciences editors I know earned their degree in the humanities.

Veterinarians who are good with English also make superb clinical editors. They may have never done open-heart surgery on a human, but they have intimate knowledge of physiology. I’ve also generally found them to be compassionate and attentive, which are great intangible traits for an editor.

So this is where it’s counterintuitive. Some of the best editors are not PhDs in their best topics. They are, however, experts in language and in related fields. They supplement their knowledge with publication knowledge.

Scientific editors need to understand AI disclosure and verification

An AI revision can sound fluent while turning “may improve” into “improves.” A scientific editor should catch that change. Repeated explanations, unsupported conclusions, added interpretations, and invented references also deserve a closer look. An editor needs to understand these patterns, ask how AI was used, and check the underlying evidence before approving changes. Style alone doesn’t prove AI use.

Check your journal’s AI disclosure rules before submission. ICMJE recommends describing AI use in the cover letter and, where applicable, the manuscript. Human authors remain responsible for accuracy and attribution; AI tools cannot qualify as authors.

A declaration should explain what you actually did. For example: “We used ChatGPT [version] to revise English phrasing and reviewed all changes.” Adapt it to your journal’s instructions and include other uses, such as drafting passages or analyzing data. Then check that the revised wording still says what you mean.

Ask your editor which AI tools they use and how they handle your manuscript. ICMJE recommends AI transparency about the tool and its purpose. Editors and reviewers shouldn’t upload submitted work to AI systems that cannot assure manuscript confidentiality without the authors’ explicit permission. Agree on how unpublished material will be handled before sharing it.

Why not just use AI instead of a human scientific editor?

You can know your research inside out and still struggle to judge an English revision. Authors who use English as a second language often lack a reliable benchmark for publication-ready English. A sentence may sound smoother while losing a qualification or using a term that your field treats differently. You need someone who can spot that and discuss it with you.

Some writing platforms, including Jenni AI and SciSpace, offer excellent help with drafting and revising academic prose. They can work with the research material you provide. They have no human conscience or personal concern for your research, though, and they cannot take responsibility for the manuscript.

The underlying language models use text prediction based on learned patterns and probabilities. That favors the “most likely text” for a given context and can pull a draft toward familiar, average phrasing. I think of this as regression toward the mean in writing quality: AI can improve a weak draft while flattening the precision or distinctiveness of a stronger one. Source grounding and careful prompts can help, but they still leave you with the job of judging the result. A human scientific editor can make that judgment with you, explain a disputed wording choice, and take responsibility for the editing.

Editors with another language or two have extra tools in their toolbelt. In my case, I can read and understand Japanese. If your English leaves me unsure, I can refer to your Japanese wording, check what you intended, and suggest English terminology that fits your field. For example, 「有意差」 needs precise wording about statistical significance; replacing it with a vague claim that a difference is “meaningful” could change the interpretation. I can ask you to resolve an ambiguity before it reaches a reviewer.

Scientific editors do this as a job, others don’t

Unlike freelance proofreaders, who are picking up a few bucks fixing spelling and grammar, scientific editors edit substantively, a lot. Unlike colleagues in the lab or hospital, who do lab research and clinical medicine, scientific editors do scientific editing.

And regarding English, unlike most native speakers, and certainly unlike non-native speakers, English scientific editors are trained and skilled in effective English usage.

Many freelancers, and even some scientific editors, come from non-inner-circle countries such as India and Kenya, where English is widely used, but not used at home. This introduces unnatural and mistaken English. Insist on a native English speaker from an inner-circle country such as the US, UK, or Australia.

One word of caution. Just like in any profession, some professionals are more skilled than others. There are good and not-so-good dentists, chefs, and auto mechanics.

The same applies to editors. You don’t have to settle for one who makes a mess of your paper and doesn’t ask you any questions if they’re unclear on something. Don’t accept that junk. Find someone better.

Scientific editors are a combination of subject-matter experts, language experts, and publication experts. This is why, in most cases, they’re the best ones to do your scientific editing.