From: Mark Goodwin <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 13:08:10 -0500

Thanks for the response, Ari.

I would like to provide a further defense of copyediting, since Mark
K. invited this.

I (Mark G.) do understand the point Mark K. makes.

Since this point seems to start from an assertion regarding the nature
of copyediting (having noted the age-old example regarding comma
structure...as if that were the quintessential element of the
copyediting process), it is important for me to post this missive
about the copy editors with whom I work, daily.

(Granted, the term "copyediting" connotes different concepts to
different people.)

At APS, Copy Editors are held to a high standard. They must be able to
improve the content that is accepted by Peer Review, so that the final
article meets very high expectations of excellence, including (but not
limited to) proper use of English, adherence to a thoughtful and
comprehensive house style, and adherence to the Society's ethical
policies... and yet still maintain the integrity and accuracy of the
concepts, ideas, and facts presented by the author. During the
process, *after* acceptance, authors are always apprised of any
suggested changes and are given the opportunity to advise the copy
editor of problematic changes to content. For an APS Copy Editor, all
facts that can be checked must be checked, and data that is repeated
(e.g., data in text, but also in a table) must be precisely
correlative and correspondent in all places. Ambiguities and
inaccuracies must be discovered and presented to the author for
resolution. Many aspects of high-level copyediting cannot be subject
to rote rules and, instead, require judgment, research, and careful
consideration. This is meant to be only brief description of the value
that can be added to a scientific paper after acceptance. Some authors
may choose to perform this role themselves, in which case the
copyediting task is quick and simply a final double-check, which has a
value in and of itself.

At APS, copyediting is *not* simply dropping a manuscript through a
series of sieves, to apply this comma preference or that, and move
forward with whatever comes out the other side...that is not
copyediting...that is normalizing. Such proofreading has its place,
but alongside a rigorous copyedit.

I think Mark K. is suggesting that the members of the Editorial Board
should be expected to apply copyediting during review (yes?), and I
guess that could work, if you hired some trained copy editors to work
with them during the process...

I guess if this all sounds overly defensive, it probably is,
especially since I am only just now joining the thread. Having said
what I have said, I will return, with you all, to the major topic at
hand...the rigor of the Peer Review process, yes?

-Mark (Goodwin)
Editorial Manager, APS Publications


-----Original Message-----
From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 16:59:25 -0800

Well, Mark, I began wondering how many scientists are on the list.

Commas? Ephesus?

The "high editorial standard" is to find the right group of referees,
to hear their conclusions, to give the authors opportunity to respond
and again to weigh these against those and, finally, to make a
responsible decision.

"Copy-editing" rests on top of this as cream in coffee mocco.

Ari Belenkiy

SFU, Canada



On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:24 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Mark Kurtz <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:56:03 -0500
>
> At the risk of eliciting the ire of this list, I think you may be
> interested in an appropriately redacted comment from a major
> researcher, who is wonderfully open to new thoughts she/he is hearing
> from his/her graduate students and younger colleagues:
>
> I re-examined a paper that I co-authored in PLoS One that did not
> receive any copy-editing (as I am only now realizing, thanks to xxx's
> email).  I am relieved to see how well the system worked.  In this
> case, the first author did not have English as his first language, so
> several of us had worked closely with him to get things properly
> stated.  I had nevertheless simply assumed that a copy-editor had
> double-checked us and made sure that all was well.  The light-bulb
> moment for me is realizing that it was not copy-edited and yet is well
> presented.  My intent is not to pat us on the back for this effort,
> but simply to recognize (as xxx points out) that authors do indeed
> bear the responsibility for clear and accurate communication and that
> we do (or can) indeed rise to this occasion.
>
>
> Gold OA may indeed point to "lower" editorial standards, as Joe
> asserts. The pertinent question, from my experience, is: What was the
> value of those "higher" editorial standards? Are we to insist, as I
> have in my traditional past, that we are utterly consistent about,
> say, series commas? The spelling of Ephesos/Ephesus in a
> multidisciplinary examination of a critical Old World archaeological
> site--for the sake of, what, fastidiousness? If we don't so insist,
> does that--in the vast majority of cases--diminish meaning? And if
> not, why insist, and why disparage those who do not?
>
> I don't think so. I'm a heavy user of both SSRN, ArXiv, PLoS One,
> Scientific Reports, etc. etc. I have not experienced a loss of meaning
> on these platforms.
>
> The burden of proof is on the affirmative--those who assert value.
>
> Mark Kurtz
>
> On Feb 28, 2013, at 6:05 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:54:08 -0500
>
> I think that many of the commenters on this thread are missing the
> point. The point is not that mistakes happen.  The point is not that
> you can find mistakes even in traditionally published work.  And the
> point is not that you can find errors in Gold OA publications (as I
> did).  The point is that lower editorial standards are part of the
> basic architecture of Gold OA.  That's a fundamental shift.  We don't
> know where it will lead, but when you build a road, don't you get the
> urge to ask where you are driving?
>
> Joe Esposito