Editing isn’t ghostwriting
In this recent Science commentary, geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes makes a forceful case for "cleaning up our house" by exposing the harms of ghostwriting in science. By ghostwriting, she means the writing of papers behind the scenes by people with an agenda.
Drawing on her own research (with Alexander A. Kaurov), she argues that corporate ghostwriting of research papers can have extensive, long-lasting effects on the public. Oreskes and Kaurov examined how a 20-year-old review ghostwritten by the agrochemical company Monsanto has materially shifted public opinion as to the safety of glyphosphate – the active ingredient in their herbicide Roundup. The paper has had a long "afterlife," showing up as proof of glyphosphate's safety in Wikipedia, in policy documents, and elsewhere.
Oreskes writes in her Science commentary that ghostwriting like this "is a form of scientific fraud because a paper is falsely presented as the work of people other than its actual authors." And, as she notes, ghostwriting directly threatens scientific integrity: the Monsanto paper, for instance, "may have been inappropriately influenced" by its financial interests in Roundup.
Oreskes' readers in Science are likely already invested in scientific integrity and thus receptive to her call to clean things up and restore scientific integrity. It's an important message, and forcefully argued. It's also broadly consistent with scientists' commitment to transparency and the growing trend toward open science in general.
But Oreskes' argument raises a question she doesn't address: what about the researchers who would never allow ghostwriting but still need outside help? Is it okay to get help developing ideas or refining text? Where's the line between a paper written with editorial supports and one that's ghostwritten?
My short answer: editing is not ghostwriting. Working with a third party to plan or develop a paper is not ghostwriting. Even hiring to help you do the actual writing is not ghostwriting, as long as you remain in control of your ideas. But you have to be honest about the help you receive.
Intellectual ownership is the key difference. When a corporation ghostwrites an academic paper – in Oreskes' example, Monsanto – the stated authors have surrendered ownership of their ideas, which belong to the uncredited corporate authors. But editors are not motivated parties. Academic editors are experts in writing, revising, research genres, the journal submission process, style guides, and the intricacies of Microsoft Word. We aren't subject matter experts, and we aren't selling glyphosphate – only our services. Other than payment for services rendered, we don't benefit from our editing work being out in the world. Editing and other forms of writing support leave the authors in charge at every step. Writing is a conduit for scientific reasoning and results, and an editor's job is to help that conduit run smoothly.
An editor’s job? To make the words flow. Photo by 默澄 M.ZEN.
Here's what ethical assistance can look like at varying levels of editing.
For documents that just need language editing, I'm correcting grammar, making slight adjustments for clarity or tone, creating consistency in how verb tenses are handled, etc. Edits like these aim to leave the original meaning intact. I'm making changes directly in the text, but with Track Changes on for full transparency. Where specific changes may affect the intended meaning of the text, I leave comments asking the writer to confirm their meaning is intact. I might additionally leave comments with suggestions for improving the flow of ideas or tightening up the logic of a particular section, if that's what we've agreed on. But I won't change the meaning. I'm refining, not ghostwriting.
The next step up involves more intensive edits like rearranging paragraphs or rewriting sentences to help nudge a document into a more logical, polished shape. I might help tweak how the research rationale is presented or draft a conclusion – but the author's reasoning and meaning are always preserved. It's like assembling a puzzle whose pieces have been scattered: I'm helping the author resolve their own ideas to reveal the intended picture clearly. Refining, not ghostwriting.
The most-intensive edits sometimes involve generating text from scratch. This too can be ethical but requires an author's explicit consent and clear instructions. My job might be to convert a document from one genre to another, like turning a white paper into a journal manuscript. Or it might be drafting an introduction or conclusion for an otherwise complete manuscript. But my job is never to interpret results, draw conclusions, or make connections to the literature. Intros and conclusions are bookends; the author owns the rest.
Side note: There's a special caveat here for student writing: I never touch the logic of a student paper/thesis/dissertation. I'll correct grammar, make light edits, and leave suggestions in the comments, but interfering with the student's own thought process is unethical and generally incompatible with educational objectives. But for professional researchers? Rewriting and rearranging, tinkering, testing out new phrasings – I'm here for it all.
How to ensure your work with an editor remains ethical? A few suggestions.
Disclose. Let people know who worked on your project and how – that's the opposite of ghostwriting. Often all it takes is a sentence in the Acknowledgements: "I am grateful to [Editor Name] for developmental editing assistance" or "Language editing provided by [Editor Name]." Some journals advise disclosing this information in the Declaration of Competing Interests/Funding, especially if funds are transacted. When in doubt, check with your journal's editorial office.
Talk with your editor about your needs and concerns before you finalize your contract. Make sure you agree on the scope of the project and that your editor isn't taking on more than what you want.
Review in-text changes (don't just click Accept All!). Many editors will provide a summary sheet or marginal notes that comment on the types of changes they made most often and any other notable patterns; these can increase transparency and help you understand what's been done. You can find info on how to review changes in MS Word here.
Ask for guidance from your institution, funding agency, and/or chosen journal. Editorial assistance is widely recognized as a valid and necessary form of writing support, but when in doubt – just ask.
Good science deserves good language. And good editors can help researchers channel their ideas onto the page, without verging on ghostwriting.
If you're working on a manuscript and looking for editing support, reach out—I'd love to hear about your project and how I can help.
