Scholarlink

<p>This article examines the division of writing labour in the sciences, focusing on the distinction between scientists and the often-overlooked role of professional scientific writers. Our contribution is twofold. Empirically, we provide a fine-grained account of how writing is distributed within large scientific teams. We identify distinct modes of textual production—iterative, collaborative, cross-status, and inter-status—and demonstrate how scientific writers contribute under the rubric of <i>writing-as-a-service</i>. These practices reveal a structural asymmetry: while scientists view writing as an epistemic and authorship-related task, scientific writers frame their work as managerial and largely detached from epistemic responsibility. This analysis is based on 22 qualitative interviews with scientists in the biomedical and natural sciences in Germany and the UK. Conceptually, we explore how the social division of writing reflects tensions underlying this structural asymmetry. This contributes to the debate over whether scientific writing should be considered a form of ghostwriting. We also reflect on emerging developments such as AI-based writing support and the hidden costs of outsourcing critical labour in scientific knowledge production.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Writing in the Sciences: Scientists, Scientific Writers, and the Division of Writing Labour

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月14日

查看全文
  • Marcel Knöchelmann,
  • Cornelia Schendzielorz

摘要

This article examines the division of writing labour in the sciences, focusing on the distinction between scientists and the often-overlooked role of professional scientific writers. Our contribution is twofold. Empirically, we provide a fine-grained account of how writing is distributed within large scientific teams. We identify distinct modes of textual production—iterative, collaborative, cross-status, and inter-status—and demonstrate how scientific writers contribute under the rubric of writing-as-a-service. These practices reveal a structural asymmetry: while scientists view writing as an epistemic and authorship-related task, scientific writers frame their work as managerial and largely detached from epistemic responsibility. This analysis is based on 22 qualitative interviews with scientists in the biomedical and natural sciences in Germany and the UK. Conceptually, we explore how the social division of writing reflects tensions underlying this structural asymmetry. This contributes to the debate over whether scientific writing should be considered a form of ghostwriting. We also reflect on emerging developments such as AI-based writing support and the hidden costs of outsourcing critical labour in scientific knowledge production.