The Writer/Editor Relationship

[HRoberts]

I actually *like* that the editors are very particular, because that is what makes the customer confident that they are getting a quality article worthy of a fair price. Granted, it is a real bummer when my article is rejected because of one extra space after a period, but ultimately I'm grateful. Today, however, there is a recently submitted article with a glaring punctuation error right in the TITLE of the article, right on the first page of recently submitted articles. Is there a protocol for pointing that out? My goal is not to be a jerk-- I am sure the author can just fix it and re-submit-- but geez, it looks really bad.

[SJHillman]

I've also noticed some pretty glaring errors in articles submitted by others - usually right in the title or long summary. It's especially painful when they're spelling errors, which should be the easiest thing for an author or editor pick up thanks to the myriad of spellcheck tools at their disposal.

[Isabelnewth]

I think there are definite benefits in learning to check your work rigorously.

But sometimes the placing of a comma can, in my opinion, be a matter of discretion or style, depending on the effect you want to create, so it can be painful to have stuff sent back for that reason; and these are the times when one is not appreciative. However I see that absolute rules are quicker and easier to edit by, so I try not to mind.

But I still think an initial edit of the whole document would be worth trying.

[Lisa-Anne Sanderson]

Hello everyone,

I also think that the editors should read the whole article before they send it back. It's very nerve-racking to revise, resubmit and
then have to wait yet again to see if the article is accepted. I am quite tired of it at the moment.

Has your experience of C-C improved, Tcm? I hope that it has.

[J. A. Young]

It seems to me that there may be some misconceptions that our editors conform to classic ideas of what traditional editors do--work with writers to improve their work. That might be lovely, but incredibly time consuming and time, as everybody knows, is money. I'd rather get a mini snapshot of what problems there are with my piece than a step-by-step revision guide that is ultimately going to have to turn my 65% cut into something like 50%. Usually when I read these frustrated posts, they are written by people who are completely new to the site. By going slowly to get the lay of the land here and realizing that the editors can't afford to spend inordinate amounts of time on a single piece that has already demonstrated one flaw, one does come to value their system and learns how to work within the framework. Once upon a time, I edited countless papers as a graduate assistant. One, two, three--you're on your game and able to advise your advisees through their errors with a gleeful heart. But hundreds? Hundreds of articles every week for a small staff is rigorous work and 7 days to hear back about a revision is actually pretty wonderful when one considers how even in this digital age, it can take a traditional print venue weeks to months for a similar service. I don't want to offend anyone with my two cents, but there it is:) If you stick with it, you'll overcome your frustration for the process and realize that it is just part part of the newbie process--these bumps won't last long and you'll find the people behind the scenes ultimately very helpful:)

[contentwriter]

Hello everyone,

I also think that the editors should read the whole article before they send it back. It's very nerve-racking to revise, resubmit and
then have to wait yet again to see if the article is accepted. I am quite tired of it at the moment.

Has your experience of C-C improved, Tcm? I hope that it has.

It seems to me that there may be some misconceptions that our editors conform to classic ideas of what traditional editors do--work with writers to improve their work. That might be lovely, but incredibly time consuming and time, as everybody knows, is money. I'd rather get a mini snapshot of what problems there are with my piece than a step-by-step revision guide that is ultimately going to have to turn my 65% cut into something like 50%. Usually when I read these frustrated posts, they are written by people who are completely new to the site. By going slowly to get the lay of the land here and realizing that the editors can't afford to spend inordinate amounts of time on a single piece that has already demonstrated one flaw, one does come to value their system and learns how to work within the framework. Once upon a time, I edited countless papers as a graduate assistant. One, two, three--you're on your game and able to advise your advisees through their errors with a gleeful heart. But hundreds? Hundreds of articles every week for a small staff is rigorous work and 7 days to hear back about a revision is actually pretty wonderful when one considers how even in this digital age, it can take a traditional print venue weeks to months for a similar service. I don't want to offend anyone with my two cents, but there it is:) If you stick with it, you'll overcome your frustration for the process and realize that it is just part part of the newbie process--these bumps won't last long and you'll find the people behind the scenes ultimately very helpful:)

Yes, time is money. That's why I find it strange that an editor would rather write "You forgot a letter 's' here" or "There should be a colon here" than just edit it. If there's just ONE minor typo in the article, it would be much more efficient for the editor to handle it on their own than send it back. It takes more time and effort to write a whole sentence, add reference links, send it back to the writer and then have the writer resubmit it, than for an editor to just add a missing letter!

And if an editor won't edit anything, why even call them editors? Why not "reviewers"?

Note that I'm only referring to articles with very minor typos, not whole articles riddled with errors.