Scholars and editors
04/April/2009 10:34 AM Filed in: On Editors &
WritersEditors
Serving Writers
Why would a scholar, especially a professor of
English, need a copy editor? People with PhDs
generally teach, research, read, and write most of
the time. Surely a scholar is a good writer.
I suggest that all writers who are about to be published need a copy editor. It’s a question of focus.
A scholar has “big picture” focus. He or she spends months, even years, doing research to develop an argument that adds to the
literature
on a particular subject. Caught in the exciting but
lengthy process of presenting this argument, the
scholar is probably not going to notice whether a
phrase is consistently hyphenated throughout all
chapters. But readers will expect the scholar to be
an expert in the field and may even turn to the book
to confirm how a term should be written: if the
published text is inconsistent, the scholar looks
indecisive or uninformed.
As a copy editor, I have “little picture” focus. My job isn’t to present a scholarly argument. It’s to make sure, among other things,
In terms of “other errors,” it’s not my job as copy editor to analyze the soundness of the book’s argument; but it certainly is my job to flag the author’s attention about obvious factual mistakes (Bucharest is not the capital of Hungary) or problems with logic. I’m an attentive reader. If I become confused or distracted, probably other readers will too.
A copy editor is also well versed in publishing conventions. In an article edited according to the MLA Manual of Style, a percentage appears as a number and symbol: 5%. But in a book edited according to the Chicago Manual of Style, the bible of most publishers of scholarly books, the word rather than the symbol is used: 5 percent. For newspaper articles and news releases following AP style, titles of books appear in quotation marks. A scholarly book would set the same titles in italics. If inappropriate conventions are used for a particular publication, it won’t look professional, even if readers can’t figure out exactly why. Both author and publisher will look less than first-rate.
The good news is that the scholar doesn’t need to be distracted with this kind of “little picture” detail. That’s the job of the copy editor.
I suggest that all writers who are about to be published need a copy editor. It’s a question of focus.
A scholar has “big picture” focus. He or she spends months, even years, doing research to develop an argument that adds to the
As a copy editor, I have “little picture” focus. My job isn’t to present a scholarly argument. It’s to make sure, among other things,
- that no spelling or grammatical errors have slipped into the text while the author had eyes focused on the big picture;
- that the table of contents accurately reflects the titles as they appear at the beginning of the chapters;
- that titles of subsections within a chapter have parallel structure (why is one subheading a verb phrase when all other subheadings are noun phrases?);
- that information given in notes matches that given in the bibliography (is the cited author’s name Anne Smith or Ann Smithe?);
- that notes or in-text citations are punctuated correctly and consistently;
- that no other errors and inconsistencies have crept into the book.
In terms of “other errors,” it’s not my job as copy editor to analyze the soundness of the book’s argument; but it certainly is my job to flag the author’s attention about obvious factual mistakes (Bucharest is not the capital of Hungary) or problems with logic. I’m an attentive reader. If I become confused or distracted, probably other readers will too.
A copy editor is also well versed in publishing conventions. In an article edited according to the MLA Manual of Style, a percentage appears as a number and symbol: 5%. But in a book edited according to the Chicago Manual of Style, the bible of most publishers of scholarly books, the word rather than the symbol is used: 5 percent. For newspaper articles and news releases following AP style, titles of books appear in quotation marks. A scholarly book would set the same titles in italics. If inappropriate conventions are used for a particular publication, it won’t look professional, even if readers can’t figure out exactly why. Both author and publisher will look less than first-rate.
The good news is that the scholar doesn’t need to be distracted with this kind of “little picture” detail. That’s the job of the copy editor.
|
