Modern “word processing” programs can do everything from check spelling and grammar to finishing your sentences for you. This might be convenient for the creator, but some “helpful” upgrades can wreak havoc for manuscript editors. In today’s Guest Post, Bruce Rosenblum and Sylvia Izzo Hunter explore the pitfalls of making the comments features less editor friendly.
Publishers often slap labels on activities that are complex, expensive, and high-value. Worse, we often accept people calling these activities “value-add” when they are core functions of how scientific information shared.
The majority of time spent in editing and formatting citations in the publication process is time wasted. We now have in place nearly all the components to use persistent identifiers, linked metadata, and style sheets to improve how citations can be structured and processed. Using these tools can significantly improve the accuracy of references and reduce the time editors spend on this production function. Even when automated, we bounce between linked metadata, then to text, then to metadata again.
Are author manuscripts in institutional repositories “good enough” for public consumption?
How we measure quality may be a form of vestigial elitism, stemming from the print age. And it may be holding us back.
A raft of typos in a new book can break the spell of reading. Copy editing and formatting are not to be taken lightly in written communication.