Editing and Publishing

Once the main text has been written, you edit it. Editing means breaking text into sub-documents; pointing out connections to other texts; making sure the document as a whole is in good shape; adding indices and outlines. Editing doesn't necessarily happen after the first text has been written - I mix those stages all the time - but it deserves to be thought of as an independent discipline, because the problems it deals with are different. Most of what people do on the World Wide Web is really editing, not writing.

Technische Universität Berlin. Articles>Web Design>Editing>Writing

Speaking UNIX, Part 9: Regular Expressions

Virtually all non-trivial problems require you to filter good data from bad. Discover the many UNIX command line utilities that use regular expressions to discern the relevant from the irrelevant.

Streicher, Martin. IBM (2007). Articles>Editing>Regular Expressions>UNIX

Comparing Featured Article Groups and Revision Patterns Correlations in Wikipedia  

Collaboratively written by thousands of people, Wikipedia produces entries which are consistent with criteria agreed by Wikipedians and of high quality. This article focuses on Wikipedia’s Featured Articles and shows that not every contribution can be considered as being of equal quality. Two groups of articles are analysed by focusing on the edits distribution and the main editors’ contribution. The research shows how these aspects of the revision patterns can change dependent upon the category to which the articles belong.

Poderi, Giacomo. First Monday (2009). Articles>Editing>Online>Assessment

Editing Modular Documentation: Some Best Practices    

The authors have come up with eight guidelines and three concrete suggestions on best practices for editing modular documentation, including ensuring that all topics are standalone, that titles are unique and descriptive, and more.

Strimling, Yoel and Michelle Corbin. Intercom (2009). Articles>Content Management>Editing>Documentation

Do I Really Need a Style Guide?

So, after all, I must follow those infernal style guides. I am straight-jacketed. Am I not?

Palagummi, Sharada. Indus (2009). Articles>Editing>Style Guides>Writing

Interpreting Editorese

Even if an editor loves, loves, loves your work, she is still likely to have to shepherd it through some kind of review process — either internally, in the case of a trade house, or to external academic readers. Many manuscripts die that way, despite the "interest" of the press. Those that are not outright killed can be wounded and sent back to you for some critical care.

Toor, Rachel. Chronicle of Higher Education (2009). Articles>Publishing>Editing>Collaboration

How to "Proof" a Translation

As the global economy expands, American companies are translating large numbers of documents into multiple languages. As a technical writer, my job is to read documents in German, Italian, Danish, French, Spanish, Greek, and Polish among other languages. I also review documents in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, but the process is harder and less productive. This article will provide a few practical tips for "proofing" translations of Western documents.

Ribert, Roger. STC International TC SIG (2005). Articles>Editing>Translation>Language

How to Save Money on Translation By Editing the Source Text  

If translators had a list of FAQ's, the number one question would undoubtedly be "What can we do to cut the cost of our translations?" There are a number of answers to this question, but the simplest is to reduce the number of words in your documents before translating. Translation is usually priced by the word; therefore the fewer words for translation, the less it costs.

Smith, Jackie. STC International TC SIG (2001). Articles>Editing>Translation>Localization

Best Practices for Online Review

Marking up paper is still the most common way to review documents, but online review is critical if you work as part of a distributed team. There are advantages to online review even if you sit only a cubicle away from your reviewer. Here are few tips for making your online reviews go smoothly.

Smith, Terry. Carolina Communiqué (2009). Articles>Editing>Online>Collaboration

Copywriting Tip: Have the Computer Read Your Writing Back To You

You don’t have an office mate willing to read your work aloud? Don’t want to bug someone to read your two paragraph blog post? Have your computer read it to you!

ChirpUp (2009). Articles>Writing>Editing>Audio

Why the Focus on Review Practices?

improving document review practices is of great concern to many in the biopharmaceutical industry. The reason for this interest can be explained by the following observations which provide some insight as to why review is, or needs to be, a central focus for improving knowledge propagation and dissemination.

Mahajan, Jessica. Brainery.net (2009). Articles>Scientific Communication>Technical Editing>Biomedical

The Construction of Author Voice by Editorial Board Members    

Studies of blind manuscript review have illustrated that readers often form impressions of or speculate about unknown authors' identities in the manuscript review task. In this article, the authors extend that work by examining the discursive and nondiscursive features that play a role in readers' active construction of author voice. Through a survey completed by 70 editorial board members of six journals in applied linguistics and rhetoric and composition, the authors identify quantitative and qualitative trends in reviewers' practices regarding voice construction. Findings indicate that many readers do build impressions of an author's identity when reviewing anonymous manuscripts and that the rhetorical nature of the review task may lead readers to attend more to some discursive features than to others.

Tardy, Christine M. and Paul Kei Matsuda. Written Communication (2009). Articles>Writing>Editing>Publishing

How Did This Happen?

Even a newspaper like The Times, with layers of editing to ensure accuracy, can go off the rails when communication is poor, individuals do not bear down hard enough, and they make assumptions about what others have done.

Hoyt, Clark. New York Times, The (2009). Articles>Editing>Collaboration>Case Studies

Misplaced Modifier – Even WSJ Falls For It

“Misplaced modifier” is a frequently committed logical error that even the most prominent publications fall for occasionally. Solution? Move the modifier clause right next to the subject of the sentence.

Technical Communication Center (2007). Articles>Writing>Editing>Grammar

Unproductive Review Practices: Why They’re Still Around Even Though People Know Better…

I have a theory about why we continually see subject matter expertise for review applied to the task of copy-editing, and why that practice is so hard to change. The theory is built around how we: learn to write, learn to review, and ask for review.

Bernick, Philip. Brainery.net (2009). Articles>Documentation>Editing>SMEs

Edifying Editing  

It is a management truism that having a vision based on false hypotheses is better than a lack of vision, and like all truisms it is probably false some of the time, but the same feature holds true in editing: the editor’s main job is to decide what is published, and what is not.

McAfee, R. Preston. McAfee.cc (2009). Articles>Publishing>Editing

Examining Editor-Author Ethics: Real-World Scenarios from Interviews with Three Journal Editors    

Those who submit manuscripts to academic journals may benefit from a better understanding of how editors weigh ethics in their interactions with authors. In an attempt to ascertain and to understand editors' ethics, we interviewed 3 current academic journal editors of technical and/or business communication journals. We asked them about the ethical dilemmas they encountered while working with authors, whether the editors formally or informally followed a "code of ethics," and if they felt obligated to maintain any ethical codes in particular. In this article, we discuss the ethical dimensions of editorial practices using specific ethical scenarios provided by these three editors. We then analyze these scenarios using traditional ethical models in our field but also in terms of a less-known but powerful model of ethical analysis originally proposed by the philosopher C. S. Peirce. We argue that Peirce's "community of inquiry" ethics model best describes these journal editors' ethics when working with authors.

Amare, Nicole and Alan Manning. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication (2009). Articles>Publishing>Editing>Ethics

Creating an Anthology on Editing

Pulling together New Perspectives on Technical Editing, an anthology on editing, was a complex, yet exhilarating experience. The process fell into four stages.

Murphy, Avon J. Corrigo (2009). Articles>Editing>Technical Editing>Case Studies

Paper, Screen, or Scissors? Editing on Hard Copy or Soft Copy

The question posted in our discussion list: Should editors edit on hard copy or soft copy? The answer: Yes. Or, it depends. Essentially it is not a matter of should; it is a matter of personal preference and what works best in different situations.

Slager, Tim. Corrigo (2007). Articles>Editing>Technical Editing

Editorial Ethics: The Role of the Editor Before Peer Review

Editors who work with authors before a manuscript is sent for review face certain challenges. Since we’re often the first to see a manuscript, we sometimes encounter problems we must help solve before they come back to bite the author. These problems fall into a variety of categories, of which I see three repeatedly in my work. In this article, I’ll discuss the nature of these problems, provide examples from my own career as a science editor, and suggest how similar problems might arise in other types of editing.

Hart, Geoffrey J.S. Corrigo (2008). Articles>Editing>Scientific Communication>Ethics

Let Us Now Praise Editors

Editors are craftsmen, ghosts, psychiatrists, bullies, sparring partners, experts, enablers, ignoramuses, translators, writers, goalies, friends, foremen, wimps, ditch diggers, mind readers, coaches, bomb throwers, muses and spittoons -- sometimes all while working on the same piece.

Kamiya, Gary. Salon (2007). Articles>Editing>Collaboration

More Tips for Writing Well

Be vicious when you edit. Vicious. Follow these recommendations with zealous fervor. They help your writing say what it should in a way we’ll understand.

Govella, Austin. Thinking and Making (2009). Articles>Writing>Editing>Minimalism

Do I Really Need a Style Guide?

Style guides recommend certain styles. In the domain of technical communication, we refer to guides for writing style, presentation of content in user documentation and technical documents, and graphical user interface of software and web sites.

Palagummi, Sharada. Indus (2009). Articles>Style Guides>Editing>Writing

Editors and Designers: 6 Ideas for Better Collaboration    

Demonstrates how collaboration between all involved in a project can improve the final product, improve the bottom line, and improve your own knowledge base. By understanding the point of view of your collaborators, you can present information better and be sure they understand your point of view better as well.

Hallmark, Erin and Marla Sowards. Intercom (2009). Articles>Editing>Graphic Design>Collaboration

Choosing the Right Style Guide 

Style guides can improve the quality and presentation of documentation. They establish a layer of professionalism that may not have been there before. They also reduce arguments and ‘loose cannons’ within the department, as the style guide becomes the acknowledged reference. There are at least four points to consider when selecting a style guide.

Walsh, Ivan. I Heart Tech Docs (2007). Articles>Editing>Style Guides>Standards