Back

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.

2026-10-08 scientific communication and education
10.64898/2026.10.05.756087 bioRxiv
Show 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.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.