Constant Content

I'm just throwing this idea out there even though I have no idea how practical it would be for anyone, but here goes:

I realize some people are extremely sensitive about other people making changes of any kind to their work. Then there are those who don't mind minor edits being made on their behalf. This has gotten me wondering whether it would be worthwhile to add an "Allow minor edits" option to the article submission form so that editors could just make those tiny edits like comma placement without going through a revision process that costs them, the writers, and customers possible losses of sales?

I wouldn't mind the editors correcting a few minor mistakes such as typos or commas and I'm sure it would be a much faster process than having to resubmit the entire text for revision. Are you sure they are allowed to do that, though? I mean, even substituting a letter in the text is technically a change, so there may be a problem with the whole "intellectual property" issue. Just wondering here, I don't really know how these things work!

I'd actually like that idea as long as the editor's comments keep coming. I've learned quite a lot from them so far!

I think that they're currently not able to per CC's standard operating procedures. As far as whether they are legally allowed make editorial changes, I would think they may if we've given consent, but I'm not exactly an IP expert. When I was a staff writer for a college newspaper, the editor there corrected punctuation, capitalization, and some (not all) misspellings, but always sent back anything that required changes in wording.

Also, the reason I suggested it as an option on the article submission form rather than when setting up a profile is because authors might have used intentional word play or have things they absolutely don't want touched in "this" article, but would be ok with such minor changes in other articles. Of course, any editor could return an article for any reason, including a single punctuation error, but I'm thinking such a change could shorten review times significantly.

I think it would be great if they would fix the minor mistakes instead of returning them to us. It's very disheartening when you wait a week for the article to be reviewed only to have it returned because you forgot a comma. I understand that if the article is riddled with mistakes to return them, but if it's just a few mistakes then I think they should fix it. It would probably save time for everyone. Our articles would get posted quicker, and the editors wouldn't have to keep reading the same articles again and again.

I think if the editors started fixing mistakes, the writers would become careless about their own editing. I'm not sure what they use for software. It may be read only.

Judith wrote:I think if the editors started fixing mistakes, the writers would become careless about their own editing. I'm not sure what they use for software. It may be read only.

Two good points, though I think in the first case sloppy writers could simply see a rejection saying "proofread it first."

This is great!