The purpose of this meeting is to help prepare a response by November to the CASE draft report on accreditation.
Janet Salisbury, our accreditation representative on CASE will be the convenor.
Supper will be provided by our catering team so that participants will have sustenance in order to be able to contribute to the discussion.
The meeting is as usual in the Friends Lounge at the National Library of Australia at 6.00 for 6.30 p.m.
A designer's view of an editors' conference
A short word from the President
Real-life newspaper headlines
Committee notes (including the member survey)
Time to smile
Accreditation-the case against
Proofreading course
Editing and scientific 'truth'
Editing tables of numbers
Dates for your diary
Copyright and deadlines
Our guest speaker at the September meeting was graphic designer David Whitbread, who gave us his personal (and sometimes highly entertaining) views on some of the sessions he attended at the Beyond Gutenberg and Gates … gazing into the e-future conference held in Brisbane in July. David was one of the presenters at the conference but took the opportunity to catch some of the other sessions on the first day as well.
He felt that the conference was extremely successful, due in part to its getting off to a lively start at the opening drinks. Apparently the entertainer, Christine Johnston, was so good that we need to get her to Canberra, perhaps to a joint CSE and AGDA (Australian Graphic Design Association) function. He felt that it was the most effective start to a conference that he had ever seen.
In his keynote address, Brian Johns, Adjunct Professor in the Creative Industries Faculty at the Queensland University of Technology, talked about the need for the Australian voice to be heard on the world stage. He is concerned that the World Trade Agreement protects traditional cultural material but not new media. Brian spoke about the need for Australia to leverage TV and radio content to create online content. The ABC and some of our other news providers are in a good position to do this, especially given that Australian content is the least insular in the world due to our rules on Australian content and the diversity of our cultural representation.
Why is the Style Manual different? Loma Snooks' session was similar to the one she presented at our joint meeting last year. It was heartening that response to the sixth edition of the Style Manual has been extremely positive.
Another session used a 'hypothetical' format to discuss the long-term future of the book-an innovative way to approach a topic that may otherwise have been in danger of being dull. In an entertaining way it raised some major issues that are affecting international publishing. A great panel included an author, a bookseller, a lawyer, an IT person and a marketer. The issues included intellectual property, copyright, author's rights, auto-translation, publisher's rights, Internet publication, freeware, and even the issues of versioning (local references for each market).
The most important talk at the conference, in David's opinion, was 'Repurposing texts - morphing for other media'. This session turned out to be really about multi-purposing texts. It was an exciting talk by Cathy Gray (an editor) and Alison White (a designer) from Sydney, who discussed the nuts and bolts of using FrameMaker as a program to generate publications either online, on disk or in print, from one massive tagged database. The two speakers gave a demonstration of how an online document with all source material (which can include tables, sound, images and videos), an 80-page printed report and a 16-page summary print version can all be generated from the one source by three well-defined style sheets. There has been a lot of talk about this sort of multi-purposing, but this was the first time David had seen someone make it work. Again, he thought that we really need to get Cathy and Alison to Canberra to talk to us.
Heather Linaker of Wiley Brisbane (Jacaranda Schools Division) gave a very interesting talk about extending sales and marketing of texts through online resources that can only be accessed (for free) by registered users. This is a way of extending the content, usability and lifetime of textbooks.
David was very interested in the presentation of the CASE Accreditation Working Group, due to the similarities for the graphic design profession - the same issues are being addressed: training, standards, exclusivity, traditional 'accidental' training versus current academic training, points systems, assessment of the assessors and so on. He wished CASE the best of luck and will be following its progress with great interest since the AGDA has been unable to address these issues over the past ten years.
It was a little difficult for David to comment on his own session, 'A future for design'; however, he thought that it tied in beautifully with Cathy and Alison's session. He talked about how design principles from online design are being incorporated into print design. For example, the Style Manual uses some design principles that were developed for online material, such as the 250-word rule (a heading for every 250 words), the inclusion of multiple layers of contents/index systems, and the use of headings and 'menus' that constantly subdivide blocks to provide faster access (much as hyperlinks and menus do on screen). Then David briefly talked about design for editors who need to create designs for newsletters and publications as well as editing them. He has a new metaphor that he is proud of (which occurred to him while reading a book on dressing for success that he picked up in a market in Toowoomba on the way to the conference): the basic typographic specifications for readability are like the basic black frock that you can accessorise for different purposes by hanging accessories on it. In the design world these accessories would include the page furniture such as headers, footers, side bars and so on.
Overall, David thought the conference had been more about communication than simply editing or design. Although he finds it ugly, infomediary is quite an apt word to describe where our professions are going.
Ted Briggs
Editor's note: CSE has been working on bringing Cathy Gray to Canberra early next year. We will certainly explore with AGDA the possibility of conducting a joint session on multi-purposing.
Remember that the next meeting will be devoted to the accreditation report. Please read the draft report on the website or if you do not have access to the Internet, contact Janet Salisbury for a copy.
We need your contribution and your opinions to ensure that we provide a comprehensive response to the CASE committee.
Not much news this month, but we still don't have representatives for the National Organisation and the Standards Review subcommittees. Can you help? You don't need to have decades of editing experience, just some interest in the topic and about half an hour each week or two. Let Ed Highley know if you are interested.
Peter Judge is making steady progress on the task of organising the society's records.
Kerry McDermott has designed and begun to distribute a survey to elicit your views on what you would like your society to do for you. The questionnaire is now up on our website and will be available at the meetings. (See also the information in the next paragraph.)
The September general meeting saw a return to lower attendance, but members who were there had the first opportunity to find out about the arrangements for the end-of-year dinner in November. The first sixty members who return a completed questionnaire to Kerry will be entitled to a free ticket to the dinner!
David Whitbread provided an entertaining presentation, giving those of us who had been at the conference an opportunity to revisit the informative and stimulating sessions while describing them in detail for the others. This was followed by an Indian banquet in Kingston and some more animated discussion.
Don't forget the 'Turn the page' literary festival on Saturday, 18 October 2003. Ted Briggs will be chairing the session that the society is sponsoring.
Claudia Marchesi
Real-life newspaper headlinesEye drops off shelf |
The Canberra Society of Editors welcomes
Rachel Funari, Joan Gillham, Evan Shipe and Marie Peters as new full members; and Barbara Curran, Jeanette Swayn and Joanne Brown as associate members.
The main issues discussed by the committee at the meeting of 19 September were:
Ted Briggs
EVER WONDER where we are headed?
In case you need further proof that the human race is doomed because of stupidity, here are some actual label instructions on consumer goods.
The society's next meeting will be about accreditation. This is an argument against accreditation presented in complete ignorance of the arguments that conscientious and intelligent people have put before. Apologies to those concerned.
What will accreditation mean? What will be its effects, in practical terms, on editors, aspiring editors, employers of editors, clients (authors and publishers) and readers?
In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith wrote: 'People of the same trade seldom meet together but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.'
Doctors do it. Specialist doctors form colleges, set standards, decide who meets those standards and thereby limit the numbers of their peers (competitors). Accountants do it. Taxi drivers do it.
We are doing it. If editors succeed in creating a system of accreditation, we will have a means of limiting competition and raising prices. We would be able to shut promising young editors out of the market and rip off clients with the short supply of our outstanding talents. We would gain respect and recognition.
I dislike conspiracies. I think we should make our way on our own actions and merits, not dubious endorsements. But if we are going to plan a conspiracy, let's make sure it works. Posing as the upholders of standards could be seen as a front for complacency. The extensive list in the Australian Standards for Editing Practice (redundant word on the end) covers a vast field but gives me little idea of what any one standard (a measure to judge the accuracy or quality of work) really is.
In its draft report, the Accreditation Working Group sets out 'to measure competence rather than excellence'. I would like you to consider three terms:
Let's look at the standard of spelling - one of the most straightforward, but not without dispute. In a manuscript of 100 pages, containing 100 errors of spelling, how many errors would you expect to see after a competent editor had read it twice? 0, 1, 5, 10, more? How many errors would you expect after an excellent editor had read it twice? 0, 1, 5, 10, more? How many errors do your clients expect? 0. If you were employing an editor or contracting out a job, what sort of editor would you want? The excellent one. Would you spend your own money (not the taxpayer's) on one who was merely competent? If anyone knows a client who would be happy with a competent editor, give me their name and phone number. I will give you a certificate of accreditation.
The words 'competence' and the less appealing 'competency' seem to have entered the education and training vocabulary about twenty years ago. That must have been when 'excellence' was abandoned as elitist. The new terms were vague, cautious and infinitely flexible ways of describing educational standards. To my ear they sound like 'mediocre' or 'second rate' - an excuse waiting to be used.
'Excellence' is the only worthwhile standard for editing. If you are selling editing services, it will help your marketing. If you are buying editing services, it will help you choose. Anything less will only lower our reputations or cause trouble on the job. But it is difficult, if not impossible, to define and measure excellence. For the manuscript above, who decides what is an error? The client, the style manual or some human authority? Who believes that 'however' should always be followed by a comma? Who doesn't? Who begins 'state' (of the Commonwealth) with a capital? Who uses a spaced en-rule for a dash? We could have an argument about each of them. When the edit goes beyond the fairly clear-cut issues of spelling, punctuation and grammar, there are many possible correct answers. It becomes a question of judgment and taste. It is an art.
There are different types of clients, different audiences, different briefs and different manuscripts suited to different sorts of editors. In each case, excellence might be a quite different set of marks on the page. Whatever it is, excellence is desirable. Competence is not. To me, the principal aim of editing is to help authors and organisations communicate worthwhile messages effectively, and to help readers understand messages. We all spend a lot of time trying to reduce the amount of meaningless communication. There is also the vital issue of making a living as an editor. Like members of other occupations, we might decide to form a conspiracy to achieve the latter.
Accreditation is unlikely to be a successful conspiracy because the standard will be competent (second rate) and the results will be inconsistent (anathema to editors). Attempting to con our clients can only lower our reputation and make their lives more difficult. They will not trust us. Where is the respect and recognition?
Accreditation would also be a lot of work. When assessing an applicant, how long would it take you to compare the before and after editing of a five-page document? Who would you trust to assess your last job?
I have a suggestion. Let's make competency - broadly and generously defined - a prerequisite for full membership of the editing societies around Australia, and let's make it easy. Drawing on the draft report of the Accreditation Working Group, we could find out about qualifications (which we all know are not relevant) and experience in a CV. We could have a quick look at a portfolio that includes the brief and a before-and-after manuscript. Forget testimonials. How much do our clients know about editing? Professional participation is nice for the society but not really relevant to editing. I would add a short written test. I have found tests quick and useful in sorting potential editors from others.
Let's not argue about the details, though as editors we love to do so. No-one is relying on the results and we need as many members as we can get. Wave them through. Near enough is good enough.
This could, vaguely, give us criteria for membership and, definitely, give aspiring editors something to work for.
Whatever the entrance rules, societies should not accept responsibility for the quality of editors' work, as has been hinted at in the working group report. Why on earth would we want to do so? It is hubris that would endanger all our livelihoods. It would invite accusations of negligence, compensation and defamation - and we are not competent lawyers. The day I hear that a society is taking responsibility for the good or bad quality of an editor's work is the day I send in my resignation.
Roger Green
It's back. It seems that so many people were disappointed to miss the first proofreading course in June this year that we just have to run it again.
CIT lecturer Helen Topor will be taking us through the basics, teaching us how to spot errors efficiently and mark up the corrections.
The final part of the session will take participants through some of the challenges for proofreaders - for example dealing with ridiculously tight deadlines and how to mark up a page that is already choked with errors and proofreading marks.
Afternoon tea is included. Please advise of any dietary restrictions when you register.
Time: 1:30 to 5:00 p.m. on 24 October 2003
Place: CREEDA - Canberra Business Centre,
Bradfield St, Downer
Cost: $60 members, $120 non-members
Registration please by 20 October 2003.
Report on the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) conference, Bath, UK, June 2003
I have been a member of EASE for several years and have enjoyed reading their newsletter, which arrives two or three times per year with some quite interesting articles about science editing and publishing. EASE offers membership to 'all those involved in the communication of science, in all media and all disciplines … whether as editors, copy editors, translators, indexers or publishers'. However, in reality, most of the association members are managing editors of scientific journals (such as Nature, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of Ecology, The Lancet, Conservation Biology, Blood, Gut and the many hundreds of other journals that emerge from printing presses around the world every week), rather than 'real' editors like us (variously described as manuscript editors, copy editors, technical editors, authors' editors and subeditors).
EASE conferences are held every three years, and I had not been to one before. However, when I spotted that the 2003 conference was to be held in the beautiful city of Bath in England - a short car or bus ride from my parents' new bungalow in Somerset - I was more than tempted to enrol. I was not alone. Fellow CSE member and colleague, An Van Den Borre, also decided to make the trip, as did another Canberran, John Dowden, who is journal editor of the Australian Prescriber.
As expected, the city of Bath was beautiful. The opening reception at the Roman Baths was a rare treat - the sight of English summer evening sunlight falling on the stonework and surrounding statues of the open-air room housing the Great Bath was unforgettable, even to an English lass like myself!
The conference content itself was a bit patchy for me, with much of it aimed at publishing ethics and standards for scientific journals rather than the process of scientific editing itself. However, several of the sessions were highly interesting, and I want to highlight two of the break-out workshop sessions in particular: 'Is rewriting ethical' presented by Liz Wager, who is a freelance medical writer and editor from the UK; and 'Standards in scientific data, nomenclature and terminology: for whom?' presented by Barbara Burlingame, editor of the Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, which is published by the Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome. I will write about the first of these workshops in this article.
The aim of Liz Wager's workshop was to explore how far editors should go in rewriting manuscripts that are poorly written. Liz introduced the session by quoting a famous line from Raymond Chandler, which goes along the lines of 'When I split an infinitive, God damn it, it stays split!' (with apologies to those of you who are familiar with the exact wording - I didn't get it all down before she changed the slide). This line highlights the tension that can exist between authors and editors, and begs the question of what editors are trying to achieve when they edit and how far they should go to fulfil these aims.
Clearly, there is a spectrum between editing and rewriting, with no boundary where one stops and the other starts, but it is possible to recognise the extremes. Editing is more concerned with style while rewriting is concerned mainly with content, but it is not clear-cut. Editors usually justify heavy editing (which often amounts to rewriting) on the grounds that it will improve the readability or accessibility of an article. Authors are expected to accept such editing as part of the publishing process.
There has been discussion in the international community in recent years about the involvement of authors' editors (that is editors who work with authors to edit or rewrite research papers before they are submitted for publication) and professional writers who 'ghost write' such papers. Some people think that these contributors should be formally acknowledged as authors of the work, and their affiliations and any conflicts of interest declared.
Liz noted that science journals may impose heavy editing (rewriting) of manuscripts after they are accepted for publication and she wondered why this was any different from ghost writing or authors' editors rewriting manuscripts before acceptance. The journal editors, and the editing community in general, argue that editing improves readability, removes ambiguity, improves 'quality', corrects grammar and terminology, increases consistency (for example UK versus US spelling) and imposes a house style (which can be considered to be a form of 'branding').
She then asked: 'Is there any evidence that editing actually achieves these aims?'. We all assume that editing leads to improved outcomes for readers, but how can we tell if it actually does? (This is a question that we all need to address if we want to promote editing.) Liz said that there have been a number of research studies that have attempted to find out if scientific editing of journal articles actually improves them. She has reviewed the eleven most relevant studies with colleague, Philippa Middleton, and their findings have been published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (the full citation is at the end of this article). The results show that we know little about how technical editing affects the 'quality' of published research papers (although it does improve the accuracy of cited references and the accuracy and readability of abstracts). I will describe these findings in more detail in a future issue of the newsletter.
Liz's provocative introduction was followed by short presentations from three other speakers: Ivor Cavill, who is a member of the editorial board of Clinical and Laboratory Haematology; Karen Shashok, a Spanish-English translator and editor; and Pritpal Tamber, who is medical managing editor for the online science publisher, BioMed Central.
Ivor Cavill thought that rewriting is essential in many cases, especially when authors do not have English as their first language. As data is open to interpretation by both the author and the reader, rewriting that helps both of them interpret the data and see its limitations is beneficial. Such rewriting is ethical, he argued, as long as it clarifies the text, saves the author embarrassment, and is approved by the author. It is not ethical if it is done to show off the editor's erudition or inflate the editor's ego, or (worse still) if it puts the editor's own spin on the information.
Karen Shashok presented the translator's dilemma of how much rewriting to do at the same time as translating. This issue was also described by our guest speaker, Robert Nichols, at the August general meeting, with the concept that an original document could be seen to be 'not faithful to the translation' rather than vice versa. There were no easy answers to this issue for Karen, except that you needed to proceed with a lot of caution!
Pritpal Tamber presented a somewhat different view: why bother with editing at all? He said that BioMed Central asks authors to get their own editing done and once articles are accepted, publishes them without further editing. He justified this course of action on the grounds that the scientific quality of articles should be taken care of by the peer review process and because the BioMed Central readers are mainly specialists. I take issue with both these statements. There appears to be plenty of evidence around that peer review does not work as well as it should. I also do not understand why specialists do not need their journal articles edited. Surely busy specialists appreciate clear, well-organised writing so that they can access the main message quickly and accurately.
Pritpal's argument for not having any style editing was, I thought, a valid one. He said that, as an online publisher, BioMed Central has extensive online linking to articles in other journals. Therefore 'branding' through an in-house style was not relevant. His final argument for not editing, though, I found particularly depressing: apparently, the majority of what is published is never read! Well, there's a chicken and egg situation if ever I heard one!
By way of conclusion, I should mention that attending the EASE conference gave me a chance to sit the certification exam of the Board of Editors in the Life Sciences (BELS). Sitting in the three-hour exam, which turned out to be more difficult than I had expected, I could only think: 'Why am I putting myself through this?'. Part of it was to find out what an exam-based accreditation system was like and to bring some first-hand experience to our accreditation debate. I found out - it was horrible! Seriously though, while it is not for the faint-hearted, I think that the BELS exam is a good test of scientific editing skills and would recommend that others take it when it is held again in Australia. The experience has turned out well for me after all - as you can tell from the 'ELS' (editor in the life sciences) after my name at the end of this article!
Janet Salisbury, ELS
Reference: Wager E. and Middleton P., 'Effects of technical editing in biomedical journals: a systematic review', Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 287, 2002, pp. 2821-4.
One way to present numbers is in a tabular form. This is a concise and accurate way to present numerical information and to be totally honest with readers. While the description of numbers and the importance placed on them in text is essential, the reader is also owed the chance to see that the conclusions the writer draws are accurate and that other conclusions are not equally or more likely.
To be useful, of course, tables need to be well constructed. They also need to be well edited. While there are no rules as such, the following guidelines on good table form may be useful. They can also serve as a reminder of what editors should look for in a table of numbers.
Table titles
Each table should have a descriptive title. This can be useful for readers particularly if tables are listed in a separate part of the contents. The title should be concise but still accurately reflect the table contents.
Row and column labels
It is conventional for row labels to appear at the left of each row. Such labels allow the reader's gaze to alight first on the row heading then on the numbers to which they refer. Column labels are placed, of course, above the column to which they refer. Often writers find it necessary to use several lines of text for a column heading simply to fit the text in. It is essential to make sure that the title wraps at a sensible place, and to do this without making the column widths too different from one another. Space concerns are usually less critical with row labels. However, if there are many columns, row labels too may need to be abbreviated or wrapped.
Simple and complex tables
The aim of any table must be to bring together, to simplify and to allow comparisons - anything that detracts from that aim should be strenuously avoided. The simplest possible table is a column of numbers. One obvious, and common, example is a time series - the value of an economic statistic, for example, shown over several years.
A more complex table may be needed to show comparisons - for example a time series for each of the Australian states. Another option could have a percentage change - annual or period percentage change - as a second column.
More dimensions are possible, but editors should try to guide the writer to avoid pushing the limits of the tabular form too much. It is essential to keep the amount of information at a reasonable minimum - that of course is a matter of judgment, but if the table is meant to accompany text and simplify, then it should not be overloaded. The table on page 11 is an example of a table that is useful and not too crowded with information.
If a table gets too overloaded, then it may be appropriate to advise the writer to break it into several tables, each of which can look similar to the others.
Rules in tables
As we have seen in the accompanying example table, rules can be used effectively to collect columns together with a common head and to neaten the bottom of a table and delineate it from notes, references, acknowledgments and body text. Writers can be guided to include rules but to use them sparingly.
Justification
The first column in a table is usually left-justified. These are most often the row labels. Numbers should always be right-justified. Numbers should never be centre-justified or left-justified because this makes comparison - the main point of a table of numbers - difficult.
In general it is best to recommend right justification of numbers, left justification of text and left justification of dates. If adjacent columns foul one another, i.e. come too close, recommend the insertion of a blank column. And always make sure that decimal places are aligned directly above and below one another. This means that a column of numbers needs to have the same number of decimal places throughout.
I have a personal aversion to centre-justifying anything in any table, but some people may feel that centre-justifying a column heading is aesthetically more pleasing. Ultimately, of course, the choice is that of the writer or of their house style.
Footnotes
For space reasons - and aesthetics too - it is sometimes necessary to abbreviate row and column headings. On many occasions abbreviation will not cause confusion or ambiguity, especially when the table is read in conjunction with text. However, the table may be used for other purposes and copied without the accompanying text or it may simply give a misleading impression even when explanatory text is present. In these situations the table should be footnoted. Footnotes are typically labelled using the lower-case alphabet; this reduces the possibility of confusing footnotes with the numerical information in the table - it makes them stand out more.
If there is more than one footnote, the footnote labels should flow down the tables from top left to bottom right in the same way that text flows on a page. Such an arrangement would make it easier to find what each footnote refers to.
If several tables have common footnotes, it is satisfactory to group all footnotes together and list them once rather than repeat them under each table. It is then a simple matter to refer to them from the bottom of each table.
Acknowledge source
If the writer has not compiled the table or the data from which the table has been derived, the table should include an acknowledgment of the source of the data.
Copyright material
If a table has been used in its entirety, it may be necessary not only to acknowledge the source of the data table, but also to credit copyright. In some cases it may be necessary to recommend that the writer obtain copyright clearance from the owner of that copyright. It may also be that writers want to copyright-mark their own work. The foot of the table is the place to claim this copyright.
How to unclutter diagrams It is my preference to remove from tables anything that is unnecessary to the clarity of the message. Thus, I would rarely use vertical rules within a table. Examine carefully all aspects of a table and, within the bounds of house style and the design requirements, prune away until the table is as bare as possible from extraneous material.
There is much much more to table design, layout and aesthetics than I have presented here. However, remembering that simplicity is always the best approach should lead to clear and useful tables whenever you edit numerical material.
Finally, try to ensure that numbers discussed in text are the same as those in accompanying numerical tables.
Greg Baker
Greg Baker is a statistics research specialist in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library. He prepares statistical material and commentary for MPs and Senators. A version of this paper will appear in the next issue of Austcom, the newsletter of the Society for Technical Communication, Australia chapter.
22 October: Deadline for entries in 2003 Award for Excellence in Editing competition
24 October: Proofreading for beginners course
29 October: October meeting
26 November: November meeting
The deadline for the next regular issue is 31 October.
Mail contributions on a 3.5 inch disk, using Word for Windows (essential) or email (preferable), to:
Canberra Society of Editors,
PO Box 3222, Manuka ACT 2603
ara.nalbandian@defence.gov.au
If mailing, always provide a printout as well.
up to Contents