Beginning to Edit Physics  

A physicist-turned-editor shows you the basics required for copyediting physics papers (physical quantities, symbols, units, scientific notation, the structure of mathematical expressions, the nature of graphs), and points the way to learning enough 'editorial physics' to begin substantive editing.

Murphy, Peter W. STC Proceedings (1995). Articles>Editing>Scientific Communication

Editing Mathematics  

Editing mathematics is like editing a foreign language, with its own conventions, symbols, and rules of grammar. Various typographic rules must be followed exactly since deviations from them change the meaning of the material. Like poetry, placement of the information on the page is important for the meaning. The editor often must be a cryptographer, decoding esoteric handwritten material.

Burgan, Murrie W. STC Proceedings (1997). Articles>Scientific Communication>Technical Editing>Mathematics

The Editor as Translator (or: How Do You Say That in Calculus?)

Sometimes English just isn't the most elegant way to say something. It might be so much easier if we write for a math journal, because the correct language for the explanation can be, in fact, mathematics.

Hart, Geoffrey J.S. Geoff-Hart.com (1999). Articles>Editing>Scientific Communication>Mathematics

Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review    

The quality of a process can only be tested against its agreed objectives. Editorial peer-review is widely used, yet there appears to be little agreement about how to measure its effects or processes. Ten studies used a variety of instruments to assess the quality of articles that had undergone peer review. Only 1, nonrandomized study compared the quality of articles published in peer-reviewed and non–peer-reviewed journals. The others measured the effects of variations in the peer-review process or used a before-and-after design to measure the effects of standard peer review on accepted articles. Eighteen studies measured the quality of reviewers' reports under different conditions such as blinding or after training. One study compared the time and cost of different review processes.

Jefferson, Tom, Elizabeth Wager and Frank Davidoff. JAMA (2002). Articles>Scientific Communication>Editing

Technical Editing and the Effective Communication of Scientific Results

The communication of scientific results--whether for professional journals, poster sessions, oral presentations, or the popular press--is an essential part of any scientific investigation. The technical editor plays an important role in ensuring that scientists express their results correctly and effectively. Technical editing comprises far more than simple proofreading. The editor's tasks may range from restructuring whole paragraphs and suggesting improved graphical aids to writing abstracts and preparing first drafts of proposals. The technical editor works closely with scientists to present complex ideas to different audiences, including fellow scientists, funding agencies, and the general public. New computer technology has also involved the technical editor not only with on-line editing but also with preparing CD ROMs and World Wide Web pages.

Pieper, Gail W. and Susan M. Picologlou. Argonne National Laboratory (1996). Articles>Scientific Communication>Editing

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

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