Editorial Email Conflicts With Writer Guidelines

[JMeier]

This is regarding my first article submission here at constant-content. So, being brand new here might be the reason for my confusion.

I received the editorial email. While I disagreed with some of the revisions, I understand that these are Constant-Content's preferences and am willing to adjust articles I submit here in accordance with these preferences.

However, there are two revisions that seem to directly conflict with the Extended Guidelines.

First, regarding the Oxford Comma (which I understand is another term for the serial comma).

Quote from guidelines: "Oxford Comma: Use it or remove it. Either is acceptable, but please be consistent."

Quote from my article submission: "... was able to take advantage of an economy of scale, uniformly implemented logistical systems, and worldwide branding."

Quote from editorial email: "“… uniformly implemented logistical systems, and worldwide branding.” – no comma necessary."

As I understand it, the comma preceding the word 'and' in my three item list is known as an Oxford comma, and the Constant-Content guidelines seem to condone its use. And, rest assured, my use of it is consistent throughout the article.

The second revision in question was regarding the use of the first-person pronoun 'we.'

Quote from guidelines: "Using the second person, or “you,” to address the reader is acceptable. Using “we” when it refers to the reader and writer, or humanity in general, is acceptable."

Quote from my article submission: "First, we’ll look at how to recognize fragmented industries, and then we’ll move on to the primary way to take advantage of them, consolidation."

Quote from editorial email: "First, we’ll look at how to recognize fragmented industries, and then we’ll move on to the primary way to take advantage of them, consolidation.” – please avoid using first-person pronouns, in this case “we”"

In this sentence, it seems clear that the use of 'we' is referring to the "reader and writer," an acceptable use of 'we' according to the Extended Guidelines.

I am quite willing to adjust the writing I submit to Constant-Content to their specifications. However, I first require a clear picture of what exactly those specifications are.

Thank you to anyone able to answer my questions.

[jadedragon]

I'll try to address the "we" issue. When referring to all of humanity or maybe the whole country "we" is acceptable but not to refer to the author directly. Don't put yourself in the article like that.

"First, we’ll look at how to recognize fragmented industries, and then we’ll move on to the primary way to take advantage of them, consolidation." could be "First, this article examines how to recognize fragmented industries, then looks at consolidation as the primary was to take advantage of them."

[JMeier]

I'll try to address the "we" issue. When referring to all of humanity or maybe the whole country "we" is acceptable but not to refer to the author directly. Don't put yourself in the article like that.

"First, we’ll look at how to recognize fragmented industries, and then we’ll move on to the primary way to take advantage of them, consolidation." could be "First, this article examines how to recognize fragmented industries, then looks at consolidation as the primary was to take advantage of them."

Hi jadedragon, thanks for your response.

The guidelines say: "Using “we” when it refers to the reader and writer, or humanity in general, is acceptable."

The sentence in question refers to the reader and writer. Is this passage in the guidelines outdated/incorrect?

[BarryDavidson]

I'm wondering if the "we" reference is a mistake, as least in reference to the author. Several of my articles when I first joined inclused we, and each one was rejected.

As far as the "serial comma" issue, the one reason I can see is if any of your other sentences doesn't include it. If that's not the case then your guess is as good as mine.

[Celeste Stewart]

As far as the serial comma, I think that there may be some internal inconsistency on the CC review team's part. I'm really surprised that all of a sudden CC is rejecting for its use in short lists. Someone else mentioned the same thing last week. Its use, even for three item lists, has been accepted in the past.