3 ms·

They do edit the paper. Formatting is expected, final print-ready content is not. I know this from direct experience. Copy editing is about a lot more than flu

They do edit the paper. Formatting is expected, final print-ready content is not. I know this from direct experience. Copy editing is about a lot more than fluff. Accurately & skillfully communicating research and results does not completely overlap the Venn diagram skill set of "excellent researcher". Research skills do not equate to communication skills. Typesetting is a little more complex than character format, but you're right, especially in these days with better tools, it's not nearly as labor intensive as it used to be, though still absolutely necessary if the journal is physically printed. Much much simpler if it's online only. Many journals are still printed and archived especially by libraries, so those logistics are still a factor, and there is a fixed amount of labor required if it's 100 copies are 10,000. After the 100, the required work is incremental. Digital absolutely has logistics involved as well: building and maintaining a platform isn't free, BUT: I would wholeheartedly agree that the financial models here are broken and outrageous. Even considering the publishing work I mentioned, whether we disagree on the scope or not, better tools have made that work significantly easier. Scalable digital platforms are also much more of a known quantity and cheaper: inexpensive turn key solutions exist that could be scaled with fairly mundane tech skills. In every way I can think of, the costs associated with turning a raw article fresh from the authors into a polished publication should be much much cheaper.

shakow 5y ago
There are ~15-20 articles per Nature issue (not counting all the rest). I would assume that over $150,000, or ~3 full-time postdocs yearly nets should be enough for monthly minor editorial work.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  In response, review this area of my comment above: Accurately & skillfully communicating research and results does not completely overlap the Venn diagram skill set of "excellent researcher". Research skills do not equate to communication skills. Postdocs are no more likely to have their Venn diagrams overlap significantly.
  - NotSwift 5y ago
    Scientists can be excellent communicators. It seems unlikely that any serious journal would hire editors that were not able to write clearly.
  - shakow 5y ago
    Postdocs was only there to gauge what kind of peoples one can afford with that kind of money. But in any case, journals don't do any semantic editing on articles, so the whole point is moot: anyone can be an editor as long as they can typeset and maybe spot typos there and there, and neither communication nor research skill is required for that.
cblconfederate 5y ago
> Copy editing is about a lot more than fluff. a journal will never edit the text beyond typos. their editorials are written from other peers for free. What copy editing?
- tasogare 5y ago
  One of my co-worker told me about journals in our field "they will edit it anyway" so I guess it depends on the field and journals. I personally would be against it and I don't understand how it is acceptable that carefully written words by scientists and agreed by co-authors are modified by a random nobody.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Could depend on the publisher as well. When I did tech work for one, changes were proposed to the author. They had to sign off, possibly offer their own modifications, and if they did there would be one more proof sent for approval. Certain things would get edited automatically without signoff, but only if they were needed to conform to the style guide: some of that was set by the publisher, some by the journal editor.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  The people I know that did copy editing reviewed articles for presentation & ordering of material, clarity of expression, and a variety of other factors that make the content more readable. Take two scientific researcher of the same discipline & scientific skill level, and one of them might be a very poor communicator. Multiple levels of the editorial process addressed those issues, copy editing included. Changes were not made without the author's approval: They were edited, proofs sent to the author, who signed off, or declined some changes while adding others. It would then be reviewed by the publisher's editors again, and if all went well a final proof was sent out for a final sign off. I'm not sure why you doubt this sort of thing: I lived in that world, on the tech side of a small/medium scientific publisher, and saw it all happen & built some of the systems that facilitated the process. It wasn't wasted effort: margins weren't very big and where I worked they would have been happy to get rid of a few staffers if the process didn't require them. If you published an article through a reasonably sized publisher in a somewhat well-known, did you different experience? If so, then either the practices vary greatly among different publishers, or practices have changed a lot since the early 00's (which may very well be the case)

shakow 5y ago

There are ~15-20 articles per Nature issue (not counting all the rest). I would assume that over $150,000, or ~3 full-time postdocs yearly nets should be enough for monthly minor editorial work.

ineedasername 5y ago
In response, review this area of my comment above: Accurately & skillfully communicating research and results does not completely overlap the Venn diagram skill set of "excellent researcher". Research skills do not equate to communication skills. Postdocs are no more likely to have their Venn diagrams overlap significantly.
- NotSwift 5y ago
  Scientists can be excellent communicators. It seems unlikely that any serious journal would hire editors that were not able to write clearly.
- shakow 5y ago
  Postdocs was only there to gauge what kind of peoples one can afford with that kind of money. But in any case, journals don't do any semantic editing on articles, so the whole point is moot: anyone can be an editor as long as they can typeset and maybe spot typos there and there, and neither communication nor research skill is required for that.

cblconfederate 5y ago

> Copy editing is about a lot more than fluff. a journal will never edit the text beyond typos. their editorials are written from other peers for free. What copy editing?

tasogare 5y ago
One of my co-worker told me about journals in our field "they will edit it anyway" so I guess it depends on the field and journals. I personally would be against it and I don't understand how it is acceptable that carefully written words by scientists and agreed by co-authors are modified by a random nobody.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Could depend on the publisher as well. When I did tech work for one, changes were proposed to the author. They had to sign off, possibly offer their own modifications, and if they did there would be one more proof sent for approval. Certain things would get edited automatically without signoff, but only if they were needed to conform to the style guide: some of that was set by the publisher, some by the journal editor.
ineedasername 5y ago
The people I know that did copy editing reviewed articles for presentation & ordering of material, clarity of expression, and a variety of other factors that make the content more readable. Take two scientific researcher of the same discipline & scientific skill level, and one of them might be a very poor communicator. Multiple levels of the editorial process addressed those issues, copy editing included. Changes were not made without the author's approval: They were edited, proofs sent to the author, who signed off, or declined some changes while adding others. It would then be reviewed by the publisher's editors again, and if all went well a final proof was sent out for a final sign off. I'm not sure why you doubt this sort of thing: I lived in that world, on the tech side of a small/medium scientific publisher, and saw it all happen & built some of the systems that facilitated the process. It wasn't wasted effort: margins weren't very big and where I worked they would have been happy to get rid of a few staffers if the process didn't require them. If you published an article through a reasonably sized publisher in a somewhat well-known, did you different experience? If so, then either the practices vary greatly among different publishers, or practices have changed a lot since the early 00's (which may very well be the case)