Editing manuscripts for publishing papers

Medical journals have specific instructions for authors, including word counts and format (see example here).  

Abiding by style guides is often what takes the most time when authors wish to re-submit papers to different journals, especially when English is not their first language.

Although some publications embrace the use of templates, others have opted to allow for free-form first submission.

I started working on research manuscripts by focusing at the paragraph level. This microediting examined the function of the language, to determine whether it supported the author’s intention. 

The goal of microediting is to 
increase the value of the document 
by improving grammar, syntax, style, 
tone, clarity, and credibility.

I'm much more interested in the content. Substantive editing permits the shaping of the broad focus, or architecture, of a scientific document. Let's call it the big picture.

The goal of macroediting is to 
ensure that authors are conveying what they intend
by focusing on the unity, 
congruence, and coherence of a document. 

Nevertheless, if the text is not clear, the meaning can not be conveyed.

The first hurdle a paper needs to get through in its path to publication is that of desk rejection. If the text is confusing and incomprehensible, the editorial board will not send the manuscript for review.

 

To ensure that a peer reviewer reads your paper, get the small things right:

  • Ensure that all figures, tables, and references are cited in the text.

  • Check the page numbering and the numbering of figures, tables, and graphs.

  • Thoroughly check grammar and spelling.

  • Check for subject/verb agreement and placement of verbs.

  • Ensure that acronyms are spelled out at first use.

  • Prune useless or redundant words, and jargon.

  • Use patient-first language. 


According to the CDC, patient-first language (also known as people-first language) is defined as “emphasizing the person, not the disability,” and is the correct way of referring to patients. For example, instead of using the term “epileptics,” patient-first language would use the phrase “patients with epilepsy.” 
 
Using patient-first language may take up more space on the page, but it is an important way to encourage healthcare professionals to consider the entire patient, and not just focus on the disease or condition. Most readers also prefer the use of person-first language (saying what the patient has and not what the patient is), as this eliminates marginalization and dehumanization. 

Don't ignore how you communicate your findings, but ultimately research is based on reasoning and critical analysis. Lots of services out there provide editing and proofreading, increasingly with the aid of AI tools.  
 
Focus on the content, and let others sweat the small stuff.



Comments

Post a Comment

Leave a comment!

London Book Fair 2024: challenges for publishers

Image
I went to London with a purpose. It’s always good to meet collaborators and friends, but I had other goals with my visit. You see, it’s never good when the decisions that impact us are arrived at without our input. I wanted to bring awareness of my new peer review standards project to those in the publishing industry that can benefit from them. I'm comfortable researching and reviewing, even editing and managing the peer review process, but hearing editors and publishers speak of the big picture issue was an eye-opener. Change is ever present The publishing industry fancies itself as having evolved to explore the heritage and lived experience of minorities, by more frequently placing a spotlight on hidden and undervalued communities. Jonathan Karp, who spoke on the current model of employee ownership that underpins his role as CEO at Simon & Schuster , perfectly exemplified this—with profits now being reinvested in the company, there’s a new collaborative...
Read more

How to spot fake reviewers: a beginner's guide

Image
For those unfamiliar with or new to academic publishing, peer review manipulation is hard to spot. This is mainly because most peer review reports are still confidential documents that stay buried deep in academic journal's editorial offices. As long as this continues to be the default, recognising good and bad peer reviews is difficult enough... now we have to worry about fake peer review as well?! 😒 Well, yes. Yes, we do. The peer review process in academic publishing is unlike any other. The style and content of a manuscript are criticized, as are the thought processes that birthed it. Everything from word choice to significance of the research focus is under scrutiny. In traditional peer review formats, reviewers recommend that manuscripts be accepted or rejected. This much power may make some less scrupulous people guiddy... or yearning to rig the system. The refereeing work that is supposed to be one of the garantors of research integrity is itself highly susceptible to ma...
Read more

London Book Fair 2024: OA and AI

Image
In a survey on the trends of academic publishing conducted in 2023, reflecting on the need to reformulate the current business model was front of mind. The need to optimize operational efficiencies may stem from the increased adoption of open access (OA) policies. For those not in the know, OA is a practice that enables research outputs to be distributed online, free of access charges or other barriers, including the ability for copy or reuse, by applying an open license for copyright. The mandates  advocated by the Holdren Memo in the US, the Nelson Memo in the UK, and Plan S for the EU consolidated the view that unrestricted access to research publications is part of an integral right for transparency—we want to view the outcomes of taxpayer-funded research. However, many publishers follow a gold OA model and charge an article processing charge (APC), which is typically paid through institutional or grant funding. This means that readers don't pay, because t...
Read more