Angela co-founded LSE with Helen Pickersgill in 2015 to help combat some of these challenges, to support scientists in getting their work out there faster, and to ensure those papers appeal to all the audiences who read a manuscript, from editors and reviewers to the readers of the journals themselves. In 2020, LSE launched the non-profit Life Science Editors Foundation to increase representation in the scientific community, level the playing field, and help eliminate inequity. They launched the “Justice, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion” (JEDI) awards, which partner expert volunteers with scientists who face disproportionate and unfair obstacles to career progression. Since 2020, they have supported over 100 scientists with their manuscripts, grant proposals, and job applications. 

A tool that could augment the work of a reviewer

Disrupting the publishing industry was familiar territory for LSE, and Angela remembers the first time she saw QED Science offering AI-based validation and review. “When I looked at its examples on preprints, it was unbelievable to me how much it felt like an actual reviewer,” said Angela. “In terms of a tool that can understand your manuscript and identify strengths and weaknesses and put it into the context of the literature in the space of five minutes, I thought it was incredible. I remember thinking, once you put QED Science with preprints on BioRxiv, the journals are going to have a run for their money!” 

Quickly, Angela reached out to QED Science to see how LSE could work with them. They launched a collaboration in which scientists would share their QED report, and LSE editors would use it to inform their feedback. They read the gaps, the claims and the suggested fixes much as they would peer reviews or editorial correspondence, and weighed each element against their own expert judgment before solidifying their advice. “I think it’s a great learning tool,” continued Angela. “If I were a Principal Investigator (PI), I would have my students and postdocs use it all the time to identify and mitigate potential weaknesses.” 

Key use cases for the paper review tool at LSE include: 

• ‍Catching technical gaps and missing controls. LSE editors can identify the concerns that are most critical from an editor's or reviewer's perspective, producing a much stronger document than either “tool” could alone.  
• ‍Creating a shared starting point with authors. An external analysis can take some of the edge off difficult conversations about fundamental concerns, giving the editor and scientist a common reference point to work from.
• ‍Freeing editorial attention for the higher-order work. With technical concerns surfaced early, LSE editors can spend their time on what the tool doesn't do: placing the work in the context of the literature, identifying what's genuinely novel, and knowing what will persuade a journal editor.
• ‍Anticipating reviewer feedback. As AI tools become more widely used by editors and reviewers, seeing a manuscript through one such tool helps anticipate and mitigate potential concerns.

With client agreement, LSE uses QED Science at various stages of the workflow to help make submissions as strong as possible. This could be before editing begins to give an idea of the gaps and weaknesses, during review to give a fresh perspective, or even at the end of review to see what may have been missed. 

“I use it to look for potential strengths to be emphasized and potential weaknesses to pre-empt,” said Angela. “I look at the output and ask ‘Have I caught everything?’ Sometimes QED Science flags things I don’t catch, and sometimes it misses things which I spot myself, or it frames things differently than I would. For example, maybe the report will say that something has been done before in a different context and consider that a weakness, but with my experience I can explain the importance of the context, how the paper advances a concept, and why editors, reviewers, or end readers should care.”

‍

Using QED Science to strengthen client relationships

By adding QED Science to the workflow, LSE can be confident that their feedback to the client is comprehensive, and they have found that using an AI review tool can help improve client relationships by depersonalizing the hard feedback. “A lot of people are happier to hear about a weakness from an AI tool,” Angela commented. “They are less likely to take things personally, although they still might rebut it!” 

Even that pushback is productive: it turns a potentially defensive conversation about the editor's judgment into a more open one about the underlying evidence, which is where the real revision work happens. When LSE discusses QED feedback directly with clients, Angela finds that scientists sometimes initially question or dismiss the concerns, but after 24 hours they realize there are interesting points to consider and iterate on. 

For Angela, it’s not about making the submission perfect. “You can get caught in a tailspin of trying to improve and improve papers for pre-evaluators before they even go out for review. I like the idea of scientists working with us and using QED to inform their pitch and approach, while keeping their agency. I want scientists to feel empowered, not demoralized.”

‍

The differences between submitting papers and grant proposals

Another interesting feature for LSE is the QED Science Grant Review Tool. Grant proposals are a different beast from manuscript submissions, and as such, require a different pre-review process. 

‍“Manuscripts come to us at a mature stage, and QED Science helps to surface issues with the presentation or experiments to consider while the paper is out for review,” said Angela. “In contrast, grant proposals often arrive in a rougher state up against a deadline. They might be 50% over the page limit or lack accessible, logical reasoning. The Grant Review tool helps us hone in on a good idea, accelerate the iterative process, and stress-test the logical chain. I think it can lower the activation barrier of getting started, and if it encourages scientists to start on their grant proposals a month earlier — that’s huge.”

‍

A new AI colleague in the LSE workflow

Looking ahead, LSE can imagine multiple new use cases for QED Science, including using the technology to upskill.  “I would definitely advise someone who wants to become a journal editor to train themselves on QED Science,” said Angela. LSE also hosts workshops on writing and scientific peer review, and envisions using QED Science as an example of the kinds of feedback scientists can get, how they can stress-test their manuscripts before they go out the door, and even to show a visual map of claims and how they work. “Writing is daunting for a lot of scientists,” said Angela. “Seeing how the logic is mapped out can be really helpful.”

For some LSE editors, QED Science has become a colleague in their workflow, an extra pair of eyes to surface gaps, uncover weaknesses, and validate great science. “I’m incredibly excited about this AI era,” said Angela. “I’d love to see peer review move more quickly, rigorously, and fairly. I think AI like QED Science can help us achieve that.” 

‍

About Life Science Editors (LSE) 

LSE’s team of former journal editors, grants specialists, writers, and illustrators collaborates with researchers, clinicians, institutions, and industry innovators to transform complex scientific ideas into compelling narratives. They leverage their deep understanding of writing, peer review, and scientific publishing to provide the highest quality services, helping scientists refine manuscripts, respond to reviewers, craft grant proposals, and produce posters and slide decks. Their experts provide personalized feedback to sharpen focus and accelerate success.

‍