Scientific translation service
Field-specific terminology and method fidelity verified by qualified reviewers.
- For
- Research groups publishing across languages
- Solves
- Technical terminology and methodological meaning drift in translation.
- Delivers
- Reviewed scientific translation
- Built in
- about 5 weeks of creation time, MVP in 6 days
- Investment
- $10,500 for the MVP, $41,500 for the full product
- Run it
- Inside your business, or as part of your offer to clients
What it does
For research groups publishing across languages, turn authorized manuscripts and field-specific glossaries into reviewed scientific translation.
- Translate technical sections.
- Preserve symbols and units.
- Align citations.
- Flag ambiguous wording.
- Apply specialist review.
- Track author approval.
What goes in, what comes out
- Authorized manuscripts
- Field-specific glossaries
AI drafts, people review. Multilingual production and review portal.
- Reviewed scientific translation
How it works
The workflow
- InStart with
Authorized manuscripts and field-specific glossaries
- 1
Upload authorized source content
- 2
Confirm target languages and terminology
- 3
Create translation drafts
- 4
Assign qualified reviewers
- 5
Reconcile source changes
- 6
Check layout or timing
- 7
Deliver approved language versions
- OutFinish with
Reviewed scientific translation
AI does the heavy lifting, people stay in charge
Draft translations, transcribe media when applicable, suggest terminology and detect inconsistencies. Deterministic checks compare dates, numbers and identifiers. Qualified language reviewers decide idiomatic phrasing and specialist meaning. Voice work requires explicit permissions for the intended use.
What your team sees
Key screens: Bilingual manuscript, terminology checks, specialist review. Use aligned source and target language panes with shared terminology highlights. Include a language status grid, reviewer assignment queue, and layout or timeline preview. Show unresolved ambiguities next to the affected passage. Keep approvals separate for each language and version. In this product, the first view is bilingual manuscript, followed by terminology checks and specialist review.
Accounts and administration
Language permissions, glossary versions, reviewer assignments, segment comments, source-change alerts, per-language approvals and delivery history.
Integrations and data access
Authorized datasets, papers, protocols, code and research records. Document formats, subtitle formats, media storage and publishing systems. Confirm language, font and layout support for each requested output. These are candidate integration categories, not verified supported connectors.
How we build it
We build with our own AI software development factory, so most implementations take days to a few weeks of creation time, not months. You see working software at every step, and exact timing depends on availability.
- 1
Scoping call
Day 1Thirty minutes on your process, your data and how you want to run it: for your own team, or for your clients. You get a fixed scope and price for the MVP.
- 2
MVP
6 daysOne buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: translate technical sections; preserve symbols and units. Manual review in the loop. Built by our AI software factory.
- 3
Paid pilot
7 daysAccounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers.
- 4
Full product
3 weeksRemaining modules: flag ambiguous wording; apply specialist review; track author approval. Self-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set.
- 5
Run and improve
MonthlyWe host, monitor and improve it for a fixed monthly fee, or hand it over to your team. How the retainer works.
Why we start with an MVP
An MVP, or minimum viable product, is the smallest version that your users can actually work with. It is not a cheap version of the full solution. It is a test, built to answer the questions that decide whether the rest is worth building.
- Pick the riskiest assumption. Here: will research groups publishing across languages use it to solve "technical terminology and methodological meaning drift in translation"?
- Build only what tests it. One team, one use case, a few core modules. People do the rest by hand for now.
- Run a paid pilot. Translate a representative sample and have an independent qualified reviewer assess it.
- Measure, then decide. Track reviewer corrections and author acceptance. Then expand, change course or stop, with evidence instead of opinions.
MVP scope for this solution. Begin with research groups publishing across languages and one recurring use case. Build the first two modules: translate technical sections; preserve symbols and units. Provide operator assistance for the third module: align citations. Deliver reviewed scientific translation through a manual review queue. Perform other necessary full-scope functions manually during the pilot. Include all applicable access, accuracy and professional-review controls from the start.
After the MVP. After paid pilots establish value, automate the remaining modules: flag ambiguous wording; apply specialist review; track author approval. Add one validated source integration, reusable customer configuration and recurring delivery. Expand to additional teams, document formats or languages only after testing the new scope.
What the build depends on. Segment alignment, glossary enforcement, multilingual text handling, comparison views and qualified reviewers. Media projects also need timing and audio/video QA.
Investment
A planning range to start the conversation, not a quote. You pay per phase, so you can stop after the MVP.
- Phase 1
MVP
One buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: translate technical sections; preserve symbols and units. Manual review in the loop.
- Phase 2
Paid pilot
Accounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers.
- Phase 3
Full product
Remaining modules: flag ambiguous wording; apply specialist review; track author approval. Self-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set.
Indicative total, MVP to full product$41,500about 5 weeks of creation time · start with the MVP from $10,500
Running costs per month
A rough indication of monthly hosting and AI model costs once it is live, not tested. Real costs depend on usage, file sizes and the models chosen.
| Stage | Hosting and infrastructure | AI usage | Total per month |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVP and paid pilotabout 3 customers | $40–$80 | $100–$200 | $140–$280 |
| Full productabout 50 customers | $160–$320 | $1,230–$2,450 | $1,390–$2,770 |
Run it or resell it
For your own team
Research groups publishing across languages run it inside the business: authorized manuscripts and field-specific glossaries in, reviewed scientific translation out, reviewed by your people.
As part of your offer
Agencies, consultancies and software companies can offer it to their own clients under their brand. We build and maintain it; you sell and deliver it.
Your brand, or this one
Run it under your own brand, or start from this concept style.
- primary
#91274a - accent
#54c987 - surface
#f1e4e9 - ink
#22201e
- Headings
- Sora
- Text
- Work Sans
- Voice
- Rigorous, transparent, cited
Selling it to your own clients: the go-to-market playbook
Pricing to test
Quote an initial USD 300-1,200 batch for a defined word count or media duration and one target language. Charge separately for extra languages, specialist review and dubbing. Test recurring volume agreements after the pilot; prices are hypotheses.
Message to test
Scientific translation service for research groups publishing across languages. Field-specific terminology and method fidelity verified by qualified reviewers. Demonstrate the claim through a specialist-reviewed manuscript excerpt.
Where to find buyers
Academic language editing partners
Lead magnet
A specialist-reviewed manuscript excerpt
The first 30 days
- Week 1: interview five prospective buyers in this segment: research groups publishing across languages. Ask to see a recent example of the problem and their current process.
- Week 2: prepare this demonstration using authorized or synthetic material: a specialist-reviewed manuscript excerpt.
- Week 3: present it through academic language editing partners and seek one narrowly scoped paid pilot.
- Week 4: review reviewer corrections, author acceptance, total delivery effort and a concrete renewal decision before increasing scope.
Paid pilot
Translate a representative sample and have an independent qualified reviewer assess it. Include a source revision to measure update handling. Track corrections, meaning preservation and total delivery effort. For this solution, use authorized manuscripts and field-specific glossaries and evaluate reviewed scientific translation. Agree success thresholds with the buyer before starting; collect a baseline for reviewer corrections, author acceptance. A positive signal is payment and repeat use with acceptable quality and delivery cost, not a favorable demo reaction alone.
Success metrics
Reviewer corrections, author acceptance
Retention and expansion
Maintain approved terminology and reviewer continuity. Charge for ongoing source updates and add languages only when the buyer has a real publishing need.
Why clients would pick it
Customer-controlled approved terminology, reviewed translation examples and dependable specialist reviewer relationships. For this solution, build around field-specific terminology and method fidelity verified by qualified reviewers. This advantage requires execution and accumulated customer trust; the base model alone is not a defensible asset.
Alternatives and positioning
Translation agencies, freelance linguists, generic machine translation and internal bilingual staff. Differentiate on this specific proposed advantage: field-specific terminology and method fidelity verified by qualified reviewers. Test it against the buyer's current method on the same task. Competitor coverage and uniqueness have not been established.
Main delivery costs
Source preparation, translation volume, transcription or dubbing, qualified reviewers, glossary maintenance and changed-source rework.
Safeguards
Preserve original data, methods, citations and research limitations. Use researcher review and document every substantive transformation. Validate source access and reviewer availability during the pilot. Maintain customer-level access, data deletion controls and a record of final approvals.