Comment Received 2 Oct 2012
From: Udit Bajaj Hey mate, I've been doing some digging around recently about various American and European styles and I stumbled upon your rant about the copy editors. Let me start by saying that I am working as a copy editor for a popular techie website, and when I saw the title of your post, I couldn't be more curious as to why someone would want to rant about people who only try to improve upon the posts of authors. Well, after reading the article and having agreed with many of your points about the various archaic rules of publishing houses all around the world -- and having followed the American style at my current job -- I couldn't agree more with the rant. The only points that bothered me, and as one of your readers pointed out in the comments section, were where you blamed possibly the entire fleet of copy editors instead of blaming publishing houses who make people like us follow those rules. For example, I've always been fond of the age old rule that marks clear distinctions amongst various dashes and the hyphen, but my publishers feel using that rule is not really necessary as they were never chided for it by their superiors. It all depends on how publishers want their posts to look, even if it includes rules that are no longer relevant in the modern era. As far as I am concerned, having edited all sorts of posts -- technology, science, and literature -- in my experience of just over a year, I would love to have all the posts that come under my supervision to have a consistency, distinguished only by their content and the "ideal style" that post should be in, as long as it is not confusing to the reader. Hence, I feel that while you raise a number of valid points, blaming copy editors for only following the in-house rules (probably because they need the job and thus have to follow the guidelines of the publishing house they work for) instead of blaming the publishers themselves for using archaic rules dating mid-50s or so, is a bit unfair. Granted my experience is not much to come to that conclusion and argue with you, but as a reader, editor, and someone who has been often looked down by people just because I come from India and thus am considered to lack the "skills of the language", I think blaming copy editors is not just right when they are under a near-dictatorial rule by the people they work for.
Comment Received 03 Nov 2009
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:01:58 -0000 (GMT) Subject: Just saying what a great rant about copy editors To: A.Sloman@cs.bham.ac.uk Hi, I read your rant about copy editors and had to e-mail yourself and just say what a substantive but equally amusing read it was. As a history student I was hunting down "publishers insist on end note" via google and your page came up (I think you can guess my opinions on those!) Anyway, that was really it, just wanted to say what an enjoyable read it was start to finish even for one of the MTV generation with an attention span of 8 seconds, so thanks for putting it up. Robert Fenning.
Subject: Re: MESSAGE TO FELLOW ACADEMICS ABOUT TO PUBLISH Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:30:54 +0100 I consider many of the comments you have made in this article to be extremely unfair. Contrary to your opinion, many copyeditors do indeed understand the points you raise, and indeed, in several instances, could come up with equally good reasons why some of your 'rules' are incorrect. I find it strange, therefore, that you feel entitled to dismiss the efforts of an entire industry, and in particular, those of a large group of hard-working, generally badly paid, and usually self-employed people who are doing their best to balance the competing demands of publishers and authors, without even giving them a chance to reply. In the face of the endless cost-cutting practised by publishers, their insistence on outsourcing to overseas contractors (many of whom don't actually speak English) and their treatment of copyeditors as the lowest form of pond life, most of us are kept going only by the appreciation of the vast majority of our authors that we've improved their manuscript and possibly even found some errors they missed. It's therefore even more depressing when we come across authors like you, who are sufficiently arrogant to believe that their prose is so perfect that no-one short of a deity should touch it, that theirs is clearly the most important manuscript ever to have been submitted to the chosen publication, and that therefore they are exempt from all of that publication's requirements, even if lesser mortals have to obey them. Considering that you're doing your best to destroy livelihoods, then you should at least have the decency to provide a comments box, so that opposing points of view can receive equal prominence. Perhaps you should also consider submitting only to those journals that meet your exacting requirements? For most journals, the publication requirements are perfectly clear in the author guidelines, which are usually freely available online -- if you don't like them, don't submit to that journal. If, despite your disdain for these rules, you choose to go ahead, then you should accept that by doing so, you have given permission for your manuscript to follow that publisher's style. Don't blame the copyeditor -- they are simply trying to follow the guidelines laid down by their client (the publisher) and produce the best work that they can. If you are publishing a book, you may well have the freedom to 'make your conditions and requirements very clear' -- if you are publishing in a journal, you're just one of many (sorry to burst your bubble), and to allow each author impose their own preferences for each paper would make the overall publication look inconsistent, untidy and amateurish. An academic journal is not a blog, and fortunately, some publishers still consider quality to be important, even if it's increasingly under attack. Regards Mary XXXX
REPLY TO MARY XXXX From Aaron Sloman Mon Sep 28 15:55:17 BST 2009 To: Mary XXXX Subject: Re: MESSAGE TO FELLOW ACADEMICS ABOUT TO PUBLISH Dear Mary, Thanks for your message, which has drawn my attention to aspects of the situation that I was unaware of. > I consider many of the comments you have made in this article to be > extremely unfair. Contrary to your opinion, many copyeditors do indeed > understand the points you raise, and indeed, in several instances, could > come up with equally good reasons why some of your 'rules' are incorrect. I would be interested to learn about those reasons. If I am convinced, I'll change the relevant part of my document, with acknowledgements. > I > find it strange, therefore, that you feel entitled to dismiss the efforts of > an entire industry, and in particular, those of a large group of > hard-working, generally badly paid, and usually self-employed people who are > doing their best to balance the competing demands of publishers and authors, > without even giving them a chance to reply. In the past, when I gave the publishers a chance to reply by complaining about what they allowed (or asked) copy-editors to do to my papers, I always got spurious answers, ignoring the points of substance. However I would be very happy to attach your message, or a revised version, if you prefer, to my message. Alternatively if you have a place where you would prefer to post critical comments on my notes, I would be happy to add a link on my page. I am all in favour of open debate on these and other issues. I have even been known to admit that I am wrong, when I find persuasive counter-arguments, or factual corrections. > In the face of the endless > cost-cutting practised by publishers, their insistence on outsourcing to > overseas contractors (many of whom don't actually speak English) and their > treatment of copyeditors as the lowest form of pond life, I was not aware of this situation. I am sorry to hear it. > most of us are > kept going only by the appreciation of the vast majority of our authors that > we've improved their manuscript and possibly even found some errors they > missed. It's therefore even more depressing when we come across authors like > you, When I posted a message to members of one of the academic organisations I belong to asking if others had also found their time wasted by dicatorial and misguided copy-editing I was interested to find very strong agreement from others. Admittedly that was over five years ago. Things may have improved since then. > who are sufficiently arrogant to believe that their prose is so perfect > that no-one short of a deity should touch it, that theirs is clearly the > most important manuscript ever to have been submitted to the chosen > publication, and that therefore they are exempt from all of that > publication's requirements, even if lesser mortals have to obey them. > Considering that you're doing your best to destroy livelihoods, then you > should at least have the decency to provide a comments box, so that opposing > points of view can receive equal prominence. It's not a blog site, and I don't have mechanisms allowing that, but in view of your comment I shall add a note inviting people to send me critical comments which I will add, or preferably links to counterarguments. Incidentally I do not object to people making suggestions for improvements to my text, provided that the mechanisms make it easy for me to find them, and they are sent in electronic format. But I don't want to waste time undoing changes that have no logic behind them, only arbitrary stylistic conventions. Life is too short. (And getting shorter.) What I have been extremely annoyed by is people sending me printed proofs of my text without the changes being marked, expecting me to find the changes that I don't like (which I am not good at doing, so I have missed garbled things that then got published). I don't mind getting electronic proofs where the changes are marked and easily undone. And you are right: sometimes the suggested changes are improvements. Unfortunately, in my experience, the majority have been time-wasting, and ill-informed 'corrections'. Some of the european journal publishers are now very good at sending electronic proofs with everything very clearly marked, making it very easy for me to undo what is wrong, which is an improvement. > Perhaps you should also consider submitting only to those journals that meet > your exacting requirements? I have given up submitting things to journals, or collections, and only write things if invited to. However, even when I say in advance what my conditions are, people sometimes later on change things in ways that I find most unpleasant. > For most journals, the publication requirements > are perfectly clear in the author guidelines, which are usually freely > available online -- if you don't like them, don't submit to that journal. > If, > despite your disdain for these rules, you choose to go ahead, then you > should accept that by doing so, you have given permission for your > manuscript to follow that publisher's style. Don't blame the copyeditor -- > they are simply trying to follow the guidelines laid down by their client > (the publisher) and produce the best work that they can. You make a good point.I had assumed that copy editors worked in-house. > If you are > publishing a book, you may well have the freedom to 'make your conditions > and requirements very clear' -- if you are publishing in a journal, you're > just one of many (sorry to burst your bubble), and to allow each author > impose their own preferences for each paper would make the overall > publication look inconsistent, untidy and amateurish. An academic journal is > not a blog, and fortunately, some publishers still consider quality to be > important, even if it's increasingly under attack. I agree that quality is important. That includes giving more weight to clarity and precision of expression than conforming to rules compiled a hundred years ago for a different purpose. It also involves using a document structure with numbered sections, that allows precise cross-referencing, unlike many academic publications, unfortuately. If you think I have misunderstood the point of any of the style rules or think that my counter examples to the rules are mistaken, I am always ready to learn, despite my appearance of arrogance (which is really more annoyance at the amount of time I have had to waste in the past). I look forward to hearing from you. Best wishes. [and apologies for any typos. I have to rush to a meeting.] Aaron http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs