From: Peter Binfield <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 14:09:28 -0800

Subject: RE: PeerJ to open for submissions from Dec 3rd

Ah well, if the definition of copyediting is checking for figures being
correct, correcting citations, checking for overall completeness, having
author proofs  etc, then yes we will be doing that!

I had thought the original question was referring to the type of copyediting
which involves a language or developmental editor in the in depth editing of
an article.

Pete

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pippa Smart <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 09:06:30 +0000
>
> To the best of my knowledge all the major publishers do offer copyediting
-
> however it is rolled up with the typesetting service:
> i.e. articles are sent to the typesetting company who will edit the
> articles, flag queries, etc., then set up the pages and send them
> to the authors for proofreading and responding to queries. If there
> are substantial problems (e.g. missing artwork and no response from
> the author) the publisher may be contacted to make a decision about
> the article, otherwise the typesetter is responsible for this part of the
> work. This level of copyediting doesn't usually go into depth but
> ensures that the articles are complete, with no spelling mistakes,
> correct citations, etc.
>
> Also, some society/association journals who publish with the major
> publishers do their own copyediting before it goes to the production
> stages because they want to spend more time getting the articles right.
> I recently had experience with one where my article was extensively
> copyedited after acceptance (a lot of discussion with the copyeditor
> about the clarity of certain sections, etc.) before it went to the "official"
> publisher copyeditor/typesetter.
>
> Pippa
>
> *****
> Pippa Smart
> Research Communication and Publishing Consultant PSP Consulting
> Tel: +44 7775 627688 or +44 1865 864255
> email: [log in to unmask]
> Web: www.pspconsulting.org
> ****
> Editor of the ALPSP-Alert, Reviews editor of Learned Publishing
> ****
>
>
> On 3 December 2012 22:12, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 18:14:55 -0600
> >
> >> From: Peter Binfield <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:54:32 -0800
> >>
> >> Thanks Sandy
> >>
> >> Copyediting is not provided (as is the case with many journals, PLoS
> >> ONE included).
> >
> > I wonder how many is "many"?  I don't believe there is ANY journal
> > published by a university press that is not copyedited. I would be
> > very surprised if at least the major commercial publishers do not
> > provide copyediting for all of their journals. (Please verify if you
> > represent a commercial journal publisher.) I would also be surprised
> > if society publishers do not provide copyediting. I would, however,
> > not be very surprised if many OA journals not run by regular
> > publishers but operating out of universities on shoestring budgets are
> > not copyedited--or at least are not copyedited by professional staff
> > but rather by student interns. And I do not know whether OA publishers
> > like Hindawi offer copyediting services.
> >
> >> The copyright statement is perhaps badly worded. It is simply
> >> intended to indicate that if an author uses copyrighted material for
> >> which they would normally need to seek permission, then they should
> >> have received permission from the copyright owners (that is the "
> >> been made available" part) to make that material available within a
paper
> which has a CC BY 3.0 license. i.e.
> >> it doesn't mean that the re-used material must have been originally
> >> published under that license.
> >
> > I wonder if this condition on permission will make it difficult for
> > authors to obtain permission from TA publishers?  Perhaps some
> > representatives of major commercial STM publishers could offer their
> > views on this topic.
> >
> > Sandy Thatcher