Case study

Collaborative Research Editor

Bringing permissions, suggestions, and comments into research writing

at SciSpace (formerly Typeset) ↗

Choose your depth

The problem, my contribution, outcomes, and strongest screens.

My role

Product design · Research · Collaborative editing

Product focus

Permissions, suggestions, and comments embedded in scientific writing.

The Short Version

I designed Typeset’s collaborative editing workflow so researchers, students, professors, and reviewers could work on the same manuscript without leaving the editor. The broader platform grew from 800 to more than 3,000 colleges and past 150,000 users during this period.

The Mess

Research papers involve mentorship, several authors who’ve never been in the same room, confidential work, and dense feedback. Typeset needed to support viewing, suggesting, editing, and commenting, all while keeping ownership clear and the manuscript safe from a change nobody meant to make.

My Part in This

Ran focus groups with students, professors, and library administrators to understand how research feedback moved between people and tools.
Designed the permission model across owners, editors, suggesters, and view-only collaborators.
Connected access requests and approvals to the live editing context instead of sending users into a separate administrative flow.

What Got Better

Kept manuscript access and review attached to the writing context instead of a separate admin surface.
Contributed during a period when the broader platform grew from 800 to 3,000+ colleges and served 150,000+ users.

Impact

What Actually Moved

For the Business

Brought permissions, suggestions, comments, and approvals into one research-writing workflow.

For the Humans

Researchers can collaborate without moving feedback away from the manuscript context it belongs to.

For the Spreadsheet

Increases institutional product value and retention by supporting the multi-person workflows behind academic writing.

Highlights evidence

4 essential screens from the final experience.

Evidence 01

Framed collaboration around the realities of research writing

Evidence 02

Kept sharing anchored to the active manuscript

Evidence 03

Made view, suggest, and edit access explicit during invitation

Evidence 04

Let a view-only collaborator request access without losing reading context