Editing REsEaRch

Editing REsEaRchThe Author Editing Approach to Providing Effective Support to

Writers of Research Papers

Valerie Matarese

Medford, New Jersey

First Printing

Editing Research: The Author Editing Approach to Providing Effective Support to Writers of Research Papers

Copyright © 2016 by Valerie Ann Matarese

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer, who may quote brief passages in a review. Published by Information Today, Inc., 143 Old Marlton Pike, Medford, New Jersey 08055.

Publisher’s Note: The author and publisher have taken care in the preparation of this book but make no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assume no respon-sibility for errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of the use of the information or programs contained herein.

Many of the designations used by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their prod-ucts are claimed as trademarks. Where those designations appear in this book and Information Today, Inc. was aware of a trademark claim, the designations have been printed with initial capital letters.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A Cataloging-in-Publication Record for this title is available from the Library of Congress

Printed and bound in the United States of America

President and CEO: Thomas H. Hogan, Sr.Editor-in-Chief and Publisher: John B. BryansAssociate Editor: Beverly M. MichaelsProduction Manager: Tiffany ChamenkoProduction Coordinator: Johanna HieglMarketing Coordinator: Rob ColdingProofreader: Joann M. WleklinskiIndexer: Nan Badgett

Interior Design by Amnet SystemsCover Design by Denise M. Erickson

infotoday.com

ai giovani che non si arrendono

vii

Contents

Figures, Tables, and Sidebars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi

Prologue: Birth, Metamorphosis, and Flight of a Research Article . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii

Chapter 1 Aims and Challenges of Writing for Publication in Today’s Global Research Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Research Publishing Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The State of Scholarly Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

The Internationalization of Scholarly Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

English for Research Publication Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Challenges of Research Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Writing in Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Less Support from Publishers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Chapter 2 Editing in the Sciences and Other Scholarly Disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Editing Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

The First Publishers and Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Levels of Editing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

A Temporal Classification of Editing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

viii Editing Research

Chapter 3 Authors’ Editors: Partners in Communication at the Service of Researchers and Readers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

The First Authors’ Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Development of Author Editing for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Do We Call Ourselves Authors’ Editors? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Chapter 4 Authors’ Editors in Action: A Qualitative Research Foray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Expert Informants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Bibliographic Research and Integration with Qualitative Research Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Chapter 5 View from the Academy: The Delicate Position of Editing Services among Needs and Concerns . . . . . . . . . 75

Researchers’ Motivations to Seek Editing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Researchers’ Vocalization of the Editing Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Alternative Academic Views of Editors and Editing . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Chapter 6 Editing Research Articles and Other Genres for Publication in Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Journals . . . . . . . . 91

Substantive Editing of Research Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Author Editing Requires Dialog with Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Added Value for Researcher‒Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Better Science Communication, Less Research Waste, and Safeguarded Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

What Author Editing Is Not . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Acknowledgments and Editing Certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

The Impact of Editing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Contents ix

Chapter 7 Becoming and Being an Authors’ Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Career Path to Author Editing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Networks for Collegiate Exchange and Training Opportunities . . 127

Certificates of Achievement and Certification of Skills . . . . . . . . . 129

Educational Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Field Specialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Multilingualism and Multiculturalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Rapport with Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Versatility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Chapter 8 The Editing Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Autonomous Editing (Freelance Editors) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Research Center Editing (In-house Editors) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Service Provider Editing (Editors Working Through an Intermediary) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

The Business of Author Editing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Chapter 9 Editing Scholarly Genres for Other Media: Common Goals but Unique Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Grant Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Lay Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Press Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

Web Content and Other Digital Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

Theses and Dissertations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

Chapter 10 Synthesis and Projection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

What We Have Learned So Far . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

What We Have Yet to Learn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

x Editing Research

Advice to Authors’ Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Advice to Research Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

The Future of Author Editing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Appendix 1 . Membership Associations of Particular Relevance to Authors’ Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Appendix 2 . Peer-Reviewed Journals of Relevance to Author Editing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

xi

FIGURES, TABlES, AND SIDEBARS

Figures1 Timeline of the founding of associations of relevance

to manuscript editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 Temporal relations among the main stages of writing,

before and after peer review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Tables1 Alignment of editing terms used in the booklet Levels of Edit

and defined by editors’ associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 Examples of lexical errors in scientific and technical

terminology made by EAL authors writing in English (L2) due to linguistic interference by their native language (L1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3 Optimization of the wording of a sentence containing a reference citation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Sidebars1 Substantive editing can be done after an R&R decision even

when the reviewers limited their criticisms to language problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

2 A successful outcome of developmental editing of serially rejected manuscripts requires the authors’ collaboration and trust in the editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

3 Pre-review of a manuscript by an authors’ editor can reveal the need for developmental editing, ultimately resulting in a publishable research article . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

4 Authors’ editors have ethical standards for research and can impart these values to novice researcher–authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

5 Main points to consider in setting up an institutional editing service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

xiii

Foreword

When I chose medical editing as my full-time contribution ... I entered an occupation that W. Albert Noyes Jr. recently said is “a way to lose old friends and to make no new ones.” True enough, an editor is paid to find fault.

—Richard Miner Hewitt, AM, MD1

Publication is the final stage of research . Of the people involved in the pub-lication process, most visible are the authors, journal editors, peer review-ers, and journal production staff . Less visible, if present at all, are authors’ editors, who work for and with authors to make scientific manuscripts more readable, more accurate, more complete, and more concise before submittal to a journal . In my area of interest, medical publications—in which evidence-based medicine is literature-based medicine—we also strive to document research designs and activities according to standards that allow the validity of the research to be properly assessed .

Authors’ editors routinely identify and respond to everything from misspellings to scientific misconduct; from poorly written sentences to poorly constructed data displays; and from unfocused discussions to unfounded conclusions . In addition, an often-unappreciated truth is that author editing is usually the shortest, least expensive, and arguably the most important stage of the publication process . The published article is often the only record of the research and is usually the most lasting . Once published, the article is in the literature forever, preserving any mistakes, omissions, and inconsistencies for all time—with the authors’ names on it .

Whereas authors focus on content, authors’ editors focus on presenta-tion . Unlike literary editors, who try to improve a text without “trespassing on the author’s words” or compromising the “author’s voice,” technical editors are usually charged with meeting the information needs of read-ers rather than the personal needs of authors . As my mentor used to say, “Tom, if you don’t understand it, the colonel never will . If you don’t clarify the meaning now, it won’t get done .”

xiv Editing Research

In general, and with the exception of some journal editors, authors’ edi-tors are the only group paid specifically to review a scientific manuscript at length . Peer reviewers are generally rushed and uncompensated, and production editors rarely have time to do more than correct formatting and grammatical errors . Skilled authors’ editors, on the other hand, are given the time to critically appraise a manuscript; to study it, dissect it, and reconstitute it into a coherent record of the research .

Many years ago, the Society for Technical Communication published a Code of Conduct for its members . Among other points in the Code was that technical writers and editors are “The bridge between those who cre-ate ideas and those who use them .” That is, they neither create nor use the information they process; they are somewhere between . In fact, authors’ editors are often called “professionals without portfolios .” They are spe-cialists with backgrounds, employment settings, and job expectations so diverse that many do not have a clear sense of the history, extent, and value of the profession or even that they are part of one .

Editing Research changes everything . In this excellent book, Valerie Matarese describes for the first time the place of author editing in the ecol-ogy of scientific publishing . Several books have been written about author editing, many by authors’ editors, but this is the first book about authors’ editors . After decades of helping to prepare the literature, authors’ editors themselves are now represented in the literature, and admirably so .

The breadth of Editing Research is impressive . On one hand, some top-ics are as narrow as the origins of terms such as “press,” “edit,” and “pub-lish .” In a profession that prides itself on using language precisely, it is embarrassing to learn that the title of “editor” refers to more than a dozen job descriptions and that the same job description is labelled with a dozen titles . By tracing the origins of these terms, however, Editing Research shows how they evolved and differentiated over the centuries . In so doing, it explains, if not excuses, this apparent lack of precision .

On the other hand, some topics in the book are as wide as the globaliza-tion of science and scientific publishing . For better or worse, English has become the language of science worldwide, posing an additional burden on nonnative English speakers who must publish in English-language journals to participate in the scientific community and to advance professionally . The book explores the implications of this new market for authors’ editors and thoughtfully summarizes the problems facing authors unfamiliar with Western publishing conventions, as well as with the use of English .

Foreword xv

The depth of Editing Research is also impressive . The descriptions of the types or levels of editing are thorough, as is the discussion comparing the strengths and weaknesses of the taxonomies considered . These taxono-mies provide a structure for understanding the various tasks that comprise author editing, as well as the education and training needed to accomplish them . In so doing, they also provide the context for a fascinating account of the history and development of the profession in the Western world .

The literature on author editing is surprisingly large, but it is scattered throughout hundreds of sources, such that the occasional encounter with an article rarely indicates the volume of information available . Neverthe-less, Editing Research does a commendable job of summarizing the most important of these sources .

Finally, the many themes of the book are brought together in a discussion of the current trends in author editing and what lies ahead for the profession .

In sum, Editing Research is an outstanding book that will be the defini-tive work on author editing for some time to come .

Tom Lang, MAAn authors’ editor since 1975

Kirkland, WashingtonMarch, 2016

Tom Lang is Principal, Tom Lang Communications and Training International, and author of both How to Write, Publish, and Present in the Health Sciences and How to Report Statistics in Medicine . A Past President of the Council of Science Edi-tors, he is also a Fellow of the American Medical Writers Association and Treasurer of the World Association of Medical Editors . Visit tomlangcommunications .com for more information .

Note1 . Hewitt RM . The Physician-Writer’s Book. Tricks of the Trade of Medical Writing .

Philadelphia: W .B . Saunders Company, 1957, page 311 . Richard Miner Hewitt, AM, MD, was Senior Consultant (an authors’ editor) and later the Director of the Section of Publications at the Mayo Clinic for many years and President of the American Medical Writers Association from 1955 to 1956 . He first articulated the criteria for authorship used in the original definition of authorship issued by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in 1991 (see page 315 of the above-cited book) .

xvii

Preface

Thousands and thousands of people today are editing research articles before these texts undergo peer review and, ultimately, publication . These editors support a large but unknown portion of the world’s 7‒9 mil-lion academic researchers who aim to publish their studies in one of the approximately 28,000 English-language scholarly and scientific journals . The editors do not work for the journals or their publishers, however; they work for the authors of the manuscripts .

Editors of manuscripts form an ill-defined group . They may be employed by research institutes or work as freelancers, independently or through an intermediary . They may view editing as a temporary occupation or a full-time career . They probably have a university degree, but it may be in a hard or soft science, a language, translation, communication, journalism, or any other field of study . They may have no specific preparation for editing, or they may have learned editing skills through mentoring, formal study, or self-education . And they may spend anywhere from 3 to 30 hours on a particular text, making minor changes to grammar or substantially revising the language and, perhaps, the content .

This motley assemblage of editors is a relatively new phenomenon in the 350-year-long history of scholarly and scientific publishing . Only in the past 10‒20 years have global editing services been created, engaging hundreds if not thousands of editors to process hundreds of thousands of manuscripts each year . This proliferation in the provision of editing services is in response to the enormous growth in global research output on the one hand and the reduction or elimination of publisher-provided editorial services on the other . It responds to the massification of academic research with the massi-fication of a knowledge-intensive service . And although it usefully helps the global body of researchers publish their work in English, it also takes advan-tage of the precarious position of many highly educated persons—often tot-ing PhDs—who accept to edit, in many cases, for incommensurate fees and at stressful paces in today’s distorted knowledge economy .

But, as I have discovered, the editing of research manuscripts has a longer, more dignified history that continues, quietly and inconspicuously,

xviii Editing Research

into the present day . For more than 50 years, earnest and principled editors have been supporting researchers as they write for publication through direct personal interactions based on open dialog, a mutual understanding of roles, and respect for publication ethics . These are true professionals . Whether employed by research institutes or working inde-pendently, they facilitate the communication of research by bringing to the collaboration editorial expertise, linguistic skill, familiarity with genre, and disciplinary knowledge . Their goal is to help authors produce a clear and accurate text that effectively communicates the research message to journal editors, peer reviewers, and readers of all kinds . They work with loyalty to “their” authors, not to journal editors, publishers, or editing service providers . As such, they call themselves “authors’ editors” and their work, “author editing .”

Author editing is a profession that originated in the United States . While not exclusive to research communication (the close relationships between some literary editors and authors of American fiction are the para-digm of author editing), it is in the research setting that author editing evolved from an art to a profession . Author editing for research emerged in the immediate post-World War II period and later matured in conti-nental Europe . Although not widely recognized by outsiders as a profes-sion, author editing rests its professional status on a solid foundation: a long history and development, a large (albeit obscure) body of literature, eloquent opinion leaders, and associations providing opportunities for the continuing professional development of their members . Over the years, authors’ editors—the practitioners of this profession—have elaborated an approach to working with researcher‒authors that respects authorship, educates about academic writing and publishing, and serves science .

The author editing approach has never been fully told, and few authors’ editors are aware of the history, knowledge, and experiences that underpin it . A few years ago, when I was editing the multi-authored volume Support-ing Research Writing: Roles and Challenges in Multilingual Settings, I agreed to co-write a chapter on author editing1 with Joy Burrough- Boenisch, an authors’ editor who, about a decade earlier, had earned a PhD in applied linguistics for her study of English academic writing by Dutch schol-ars . In that chapter, we set out to define and describe author editing in non-anglophone contexts, by discussing the different types of editing an authors’ editor does and examining the practicalities of collaborating with researchers . We wrote from personal experience and the shared experiences of colleagues .

Preface xix

Since the publication of Supporting Research Writing, several factors have motivated me to better investigate and document the work of authors’ edi-tors and their contribution to research communication . Our chapter, no matter how informative, had low visibility in the target readership—other editors, applied linguists who study scholarly communication, research administrators who make decisions about buying editing services, and the burgeoning community of academics and publishers concerned about the quality and reproducibility of the reported research . Moreover, I was observing that true authors’ editors were being confused with proofreaders and amateur “language correctors” on the one hand, and ghostwriters and “essay mill” services on the other . Proponents of ways to reduce research waste were advocating “novel” solutions that were none other than what authors’ editors were regularly doing . Even some editors of scholarly jour-nals expressed concerns that authors’ editors may cover up plagiarism or gloss over fraud .

Wishing to raise the profile of authors’ editors and correct the miscon-ceptions about our work, I felt the need for a book specifically about the profession of author editing . Thinking (erroneously) that little of substance had been written on the topic, I designed a book based on interviews with exemplary colleagues . To illustrate the range of skills and approaches to editing the research literature, I purposely chose editors having different educational backgrounds, working in different countries and occupational contexts, and serving researchers in different disciplines . In this manner, I hoped to portray authors’ editors in a more complete and balanced way than my own personal experiences allowed, and better respond to the needs of editors working in settings other than my own .

While preparing for the interviews, I began to explore what literature there might be about author editing, and I had a wonderful surprise . My bibliographic research uncovered a wealth of information—essays and edi-torials, meeting reports, interviews, proposals, and reports of single-center experiences—published in an astonishing variety of places . From the Jour-nal of the American Podiatry Association to the Bulletin of the American Medical Writers’ Association, from Kääntäjä-Översättare (in English!) to the short-lived Journal of Research Communication Studies, and from out-of-print books to unpublished theses, I pieced together the history of author editing and traced the development of an ethical, educational, and effec-tive approach to editing the research literature .

The book you are reading integrates the findings of bibliographic research with the insight gathered from the interviews . It speaks to all

xx Editing Research

parties concerned with how researchers communicate their discoveries in the scholarly and scientific literature, namely editors of all ranks, direc-tors of graduate study programs and research centers, and applied linguists interested in scholarly communication . It is meant to serve as a guide to persons interested in a career in author editing and to research adminis-trators contemplating setting up an in-house editing service . Finally, it is offered as an invitation to dialog between authors’ editors and these other categories, so that already existing expertise can be exploited for the benefit of researchers and research centers and in the interest of the advancement of knowledge .

Note1 . Burrough-Boenisch, Joy, and Valerie Matarese . 2013 . “The authors’ editor: work-

ing with authors to make drafts fit for purpose .” In Supporting Research Writing: Roles and Challenges in Multilingual Settings, edited by Valerie Matarese, 173–189 . Oxford: Chandos Publishing

xxi

Acknowledgments

This book would not have been possible without the critical participa-tion of the eight expert informants—in alphabetical order, Simon Bartlett, Susan Kaplan, Alan Lounds, Katharine O’Moore-Klopf, Sunita Patterson, Jackie Senior, Carlotta Shearson, and Marcia Triunfol Elblink . To these colleagues, I express my sincere gratitude for their openness and willing-ness to share their precious time, knowledge, and personal experiences with me and the book’s readers .

I also wish to thank the myriad persons who assisted me with the research for this book . I cannot name all those who kindly responded to my requests for articles and information on ResearchGate .net and discus-sion fora such as those of CSE and EASE . A particular thanks goes to those who scanned or mailed me copies of non-digitalized literature or who sent me relevant articles I hadn’t even requested: Michael S . Altus, Joy Burrough-Boenisch, Margaret Cooter, Paola de Castro, Dominic Fuccillo, Barbara Gastel, Sheryl Hinkkanen, Tom Lang, Maeve O’Connor, Serena Sangiorgi, Karen Shashok, Rachel Spassiani (AMWA), Bruce W . Speck, LeAnn Stee, Joan Turner, and Robyn Woodward-Kron . I acknowledge with gratitude the free access to articles kindly offered by the American Podiatric Medical Association and the American Medical Writers Asso-ciation . Elke Bartholomäus and Joy Burrough-Boenisch are thanked for providing examples of linguistic interference .

This book was researched, written, and illustrated entirely with free, open source software in the Mageia Linux distribution . To the open source community, my thanks and appreciation .

Chapters of this volume have benefited from being critically reviewed by the informants and by Joy Burrough-Boenisch, Tom Lang, and Karen Shashok, who all helped me avoid conceptual blunders, stylistic infelici-ties, and second-language interference . Naturally, the remaining errors are my own .

Finally, I thank John B . Bryans at Information Today, Inc . for having suggested the format for this book and for believing in my ability to carry out the research and the writing .

189

C h a p t e r 10Synthesis and Projection

What We Have learned So FarAuthor editing for research is a profession that, although not officially rec-ognized, is established in the eyes of its practitioners . It is a profession with a raison d’être, a history and development, a solid body of literature, mem-bership associations, and eloquent opinion leaders . Its practitioners are aware of the ethical and professional implications of this work and conse-quently set high personal standards or even personal codes . Our half-cen-tury of literature resonates on the theme of ethical, professional conduct . If we consider that this literature is difficult to obtain and unknown to most practitioners, while at the same time new generations of authors’ editors continue to reach similar conclusions on their own about what constitutes good professional practice, then we can conclude that the author editing approach—its methods, practices, and attitudes—is by now validated .1 And although there is no single university degree or agreed set of entry qualifications to the profession, the aptitudes, skills, and competences of an authors’ editor can be, and have been, enumerated .

We are a mixed bunch, but through our different ways we achieve a common goal . We may be trained in languages, communication, or sci-ences, and we work with researchers who, in different ways, need help with linguistic style, English rhetoric, text organization, data presentation, technical reporting, and publishing strategies, for example . We each bring to the job a unique combination of skills, specialist knowledge, and hard-earned experience appropriate for the particular disciplinary, geolinguistic, and occupational context in which we work, but we all agree that a suc-cessful outcome of our collaboration with researchers is based on a mutual understanding of roles, honest and open dialog, and equal footing . We may serve as scribes, but we are not secretaries; we may act as peers, but we have no decisional power .

These are the characteristics that define author editing . Remove any one of these key features, and you have something else . Remove the dialog and

190 Editing Research

interaction, and you have a language-polishing service . Remove the high ethical standards and concern for publishing norms, and you have ghost-writing . Remove the deep knowledge, skill, and years of experience, and you have an amateur’s pastime . Replace the equal footing with the power of edi-torial decision-making, and you usurp researchers of their rights over their content and potentially compromise the accuracy of the published work .

Authors’ editors as a whole have a low profile, for various reasons . The nature of our work with the words of others selects for persons who are content with having a low profile . The work we do and its impact are not easily quantified, so we earn modest fees or salaries that can be dispropor-tionately low for our knowledge, training, and output . Differently from our clients, who must publish lest they perish, we have little time for, and little gain from, writing about our experiences . These factors reinforce the low status . As a result, our occupation remains unknown and incompre-hensible to those who benefit, directly or indirectly, by our good work . Our clients—academic researchers—are little informed about different types of editing and different roles of editors . We are invisible to high-ranking academics who concern themselves with the quality and repro-ducibility of reported research . And we are misunderstood by scholars of academic writing, who study our work from their own point of view and claim that little is known .

Nonetheless, our work has a positive impact in many ways . By work-ing to improve the communication of research, we facilitate knowledge creation and help reduce research waste . By sharing with researchers the burden of writing and revising, and preempting complex revisions after peer review, we save researchers time, thereby increasing their produc-tivity and the efficient use of their research funds . By supporting novice authors in their writing endeavors, we can help safeguard the reputation of research teams and institutions . By incorporating education into our work practices, through workshops and didactic editing, we contribute to the training of scholars and improve the quality of their work . Finally, by col-laborating with EAL authors, we reduce the language and cultural barriers to the exchange of knowledge .

What We Have Yet to learn“Just who are we and what are we doing, anyway?” was the provocative title of an article by Tom Lang, published in AMWA Journal (Lang 2009) . Although he mainly addressed medical writers, the journal’s readership, he

Synthesis and Projection 191

focused his attention on the preparation of research articles and frequently included editing in his discussion . Hence, many of the issues he raised are valid for authors’ editors, too .

To start, Lang argued that “if we cannot measure our productivity and prove our value added, we may be administratively invisible and thought to be unnecessary .” The low profile of authors’ editors has been repeatedly mentioned in this volume . For authors’ editors, the risk of invisibility is that our high-quality, individualized work with authors be confused with quick, cheap, and anonymous language polishing . The Lang essay had two purposes . First, it explored areas of research that still needed to be addressed for the professions of medical writing and editing to thrive (or simply survive) . Six areas were identified: measuring productivity; measuring added value; defining the skills and knowledge needed to work effectively; identifying the innate talents and aptitudes that make someone suited for the task; establishing theory about our work based on solid evidence; and reconstructing the history of our profession . On this last point, Lang, in his book How to Write, Publish, and Present in the Health Sciences, outlined key events in the development of medical writing, from antiquity, through the “age of great physician writers” (e .g . Galen, Ibn Sina, Vesalius), and up into the period of “formalized medical writing” which began with the publication of the first scientific journals in the mid-1600s (Lange 2009a) . To that extensive history I add my own reconstruction of the more recent development of editing, as presented in the early chapters of this volume .

As for measuring editors’ productivity and the value that editing adds, this volume has cited a few pertinent works but more research is needed, especially in non-anglophone contexts . How this research might be con-ducted was addressed in the second part of Lang’s essay, which serves as a guide to anyone interested in studying these practical aspects . Indeed, this is research that editors themselves can carry out; one need not have an academic appointment . The need for editors themselves to document their added value was raised several years before Lang published his essay, at the 2004 AMWA conference . At that time, Donald D . Samulack and Janet R . Davies (editors at St . Jude Children’s Research Hospital) dis-cussed how the return on investment (ROI) of editing services might be determined . According to the speakers, “It is not easy to determine the ROI for editing services because many of the benefits to employers are qualitative rather than quantitative . How can you overcome this obstacle? Show value; avoid isolation; make friends in high places; advertise your successes; document, segment, and understand your client base; and be

192 Editing Research

strategic and proactive in making your workflow processes and client base transparent” (Cozzarin 2004) .

As for defining the skills, knowledge, talents, and aptitudes that make a successful authors’ editor, a substantial amount of information is already available, and the qualitative research reported in this volume adds to that body of knowledge . Additional research from the viewpoint of applied linguistics, continuing on from the first research thesis already written (Burrough-Boenisch 2002; see Chapter 5), will provide insight into edit-ing processes . Altogether, a continuous, systematic effort to document the work of authors’ editors—the business, practical, linguistic, and interper-sonal aspects—will enable us to define the best practices for supporting researchers when they write for publication .

Advice to Authors’ EditorsAngela Cochran, president of CSE, has valuable advice for individual authors’ editors and for the editing community . Writing in the associa-tion’s January 2016 newsletter, she advised us to: “Keep on engaging . Even if you can’t make it to [your favorite association’s annual conference] this year, . . . take advantage of at least one meeting, seminar, or networking event related to your field . The more we continue to learn, the more we can contribute as a group .” By engaging, we can resist the isolation inherent to the settings in which many of us work . We can learn about new subjects, develop new skills, find solutions to unexpected challenges, update our knowledge, and refine our linguistic competence .

Mentor and Be MentoredWe have much to gain by engaging, but we also have much to give . In particular, we can share our experiences and knowledge with colleagues, by contributing to discussion groups, presenting at meetings, and helping to create peer-generated CPD opportunities within associations for editors (Appendix 1) . We can provide guidance and orientation to young persons who are considering a career in editing . If we are contacted by someone who says, for example, “I have a PhD in biology; a professor asked me to write some articles for him . . . what do you suggest?,” we can introduce them to the world of publication ethics, recommend articles to read and associations to join, and even follow up after some time to see how they have fared . We can cultivate relationships with junior authors’ editors, to help them grow their business, improve the quality of their work, and

Synthesis and Projection 193

contribute to our profession too . For example, we can invite them to join an association and to contribute as a volunteer, and we can encourage them to reflect on their work, talk about it at meetings, and write about it for journals pertinent to our field (Appendix 2) . These are the ways that some of my informants were mentored by their seniors when they were just starting out a few decades ago . Mature authors’ editors today can act similarly, passing the wisdom on and helping to keep our profession alive .

Editors who are just starting out can tap into this wisdom by actively looking for a mentor . As Katharine O’Moore-Klopf explains, “Although there are fewer in-house publishing jobs now than before, it is still easy enough to find a mentor via online communities and professional asso-ciations . If you start asking questions, you will find people willing to answer—those are the ones who you want as mentors . An informal men-toring arrangement is just fine today .” These informal mentors can provide guidance on career advancement and on how to deal with clients, build and grow a business, and achieve a good work-life balance . They are unlikely, however, to check one’s editing work because of the time required; for this kind of feedback, a more formal (paying) arrangement is required .

Be Business-WiseAuthors’ editors who work autonomously must always consider the busi-ness aspects of running an editing service . Alan Lounds has clear advice . “If you wish to go into editing,” he says, “price it right, pace yourself, special-ize, have direct contacts with clients (do not work through an intermedi-ary), and establish personal relationships with your clients .

Marcia Triunfol Elblink elaborates on Alan’s first point . “Be very clear to yourself and to clients what is included and what is not included in the fee .” Accurate pricing is critical because clients have limited funds and time, and some manuscripts may require an exorbitant amount of revi-sion; if a proper balance is not struck, either clients will not be satisfied or the editor will not earn enough for the service offered . To facilitate billing and increase the chances of getting paid, Marcia has a novel suggestion: Treat editing and billing as separate activities done by different persons . If you work alone, create an imaginary digital persona (e .g . a unique email address at your domain) and delegate to this “colleague” all discussions of money issues with clients, including follow-up in the case of non-payment .

Alan’s last point—establishing relationships with authors—has been addressed by Katharine O’Moore-Klopf (2014) . Writing on the blog of the American Society of Business Publications Editors, she explained that

194 Editing Research

“working with authors is an arena where we all need to improve our skills to help illustrate our worth .” The benefits are that authors become easier to work with, the quality of their writing and the published texts improve, and the editor’s business expands . But, she warns, “don’t just hope that your clients and employers will notice on their own that [you] produce desir-able results . Show them . Give presentations, talk individually with them . . . Write blog posts and posts for LinkedIn . Tweet . . . Make it clear that you’re the one behind the good outcomes, but show explicitly how those outcomes benefit the specific client or employer” (O’Moore-Klopf 2014) .

For research center editors, establishing good relationships with employers is just as important as doing so with authors . As Lang, Samulack, and Davies argued (Lang 1999b; Cozzarin 2004), authors’ editors working in these set-tings need to proactively show their value . They should also convince their employers to replace them when they retire, and to prepare for this change in advance . As Jackie Senior has observed, a successful transition between a retir-ing editor and a replacement requires a training period of 1‒2 years to allow the trainee to absorb the best practices already in place . Ensuring this con-tinuity will avoid service interruptions and loss of productivity in the unit .

Take CareAuthor editing is a caring profession . We take care of our authors’ manu-scripts and help with all things editorial . We must also take care of our business and ourselves, because as independent operators (irrespective of our work setting) no employer or union is looking out for our wellbeing . We can also take care of our profession by maintaining high standards and by helping to raise its profile . In particular, we can help raise awareness of author editing among journal editors by being active members of associa-tions that connect editors serving different roles, such as CSE and EASE . We can also help increase understanding of our work among applied lin-guists by writing, blogging, and joining associations such as MET that welcome a range of language professionals .

Authors’ editors, like any other occupational group, are also often called upon to care for elderly or seriously ill family members . This responsi-bility is often a source of personal and financial stress, requiring one to cope with the emotional strain while juggling new duties with less time for work . In a thoughtful essay, Elizabeth Whalen, a freelance editor, and Barbara Gastel, a physician specialized in biomedical writing and science journalism (and, when the article was published, also editor of Science Editor), discussed how some CSE members have coped with caregiving

Synthesis and Projection 195

(Whalen and Gastel 2001) . They observed that science editors have par-ticular characteristics that enable them to deal effectively with this role, including “communication skills; science literacy; proficiency in informa-tion-gathering, planning, and organization; adeptness with paperwork; flexibility; internal motivation; and ability to identify small changes that can make big improvements .” Their essay offers advice and strategies that editors, both employed and autonomous, can follow when the need to care for a family member arises .

Come from the ScienceThis section would not be complete without highlighting the advice Susan Eastwood gave during her Swanberg Award Lecture in 2003 . Although the advice was addressed to “young people considering a career” as a research center authors’ editor, I believe it is valuable to all authors’ editors, even today . Here, I highlight its most salient features:

− First empower yourself . Then empower your colleagues .− Never stop learning ways to communicate more effectively, and

keep in mind that the basis of successful communication is a commitment to engage fully in listening—in conversation, to discern a speaker’s meaning as the speaker understands it; in addressing an audience or readership, to discern their needs as they perceive them .

− Get an advanced degree—or a couple of them . It will help you and the researchers you work with if the degrees are in English language and a scientific discipline or a related combination of disciplines . Courses in teaching English as a second language are valuable in working as an author’s editor—even when the author is a native English speaker .

− Learn statistics . . . really . − Join the research team—as early as possible in the course of the

investigation being planned . − Remind researchers about their research responsibilities in low-

key ways . Young researchers are seldom deceitful—they may not have been told about some of the ‘rules .’

− Go to open scientific and medical sessions [ . . .] and guest lectures . You will learn about your authors’ individually personal modes of thinking from a different perspective and learn more about their ongoing scientific work .

196 Editing Research

− Most of all, ‘come from the science’—that is to say, in any difficult situation, let authors know that your interest, above all else, is in communicating the science clearly, accurately, honestly . Where an ethical point is at issue, let authors know that, above all else, your interest is that the science not be compromised . (Eastwood 2003)

Advice to Research AdministratorsTo directors of research institutes, heads of department, research develop-ment professionals, and every one else holding administrative roles in the research setting, this volume has one clear message: hire an authors’ editor .

In other words, provide your researchers with an embedded author editing service that employs one or more authors’ editors who are special-ized in your research topics and who will sit down with your researchers and “walk through” their manuscripts line by line, section by section . Save your researchers from the lost time and budgetary stress of searching for an autonomous (freelance) editor to hire on a manuscript-by-manuscript basis . Broaden the range of core facilities available to your research staff, by including highly skilled manuscript editing and expert consulting about publishing within your current array of specialized services, i .e . treat edito-rial work just as you do technical support, statistical guidance, illustration, database management, and grant administration . Recognize that writing for publication is a fundamental step in the research process—the last one, often the least expensive one, but not for these reasons any less critical than the others .

Plan your in-house editing service carefully, starting with its scope . Define the institutional clientele to be served—ideally a single depart-ment, possibly a single college or institute, but not an entire university—and decide on the range of genres (text types) to be edited . Based on the expected numbers of users and documents they are likely to produce in a year, determine whether one authors’ editor or a team of editors is required to handle the workload . Identify what related services will be offered—training workshops, one-on-one coaching, website editing, book publish-ing? With these features in mind, locate similar editing services at other research centers—worldwide if necessary—and visit them . Discover how they function and what their successes and critical issues are .

Then, choose your authors’ editors wisely . Issues to consider when hiring an editor (or other language professional) have been addressed in

Synthesis and Projection 197

guidelines prepared by Mediterranean Editors and Translators (MET 2015) and are summarized here . First, be sure to engage an editor who specializes in the topics and genres relevant to your department . Specialization can come from education, prior work experience, or professional training; an advanced degree in the field is useful but not essential . If you need other language services, such as translation or interpreting, you will probably need to hire more than one person, because each of these language professions requires particular skills and knowledge . A native speaker is ideal, but do not automatically rule out candidates who are near-native speakers of English: a near-native speaker with appropriate skills and subject specialization can be a good choice if you cannot find a suitably skilled and knowledgeable native speaker . And, if the working language of your research center is not English, be sure to hire an editor who also is fluent in that language so that manuscript conferences, in-text dialog, and even small talk can be done bilingually . Finally, to understand the quality and professionalism that a candidate will bring to the job, ask for samples of completed work, names of satisfied clients, and evidence of membership in associations that provide continuing professional development for editors; you can also ask if the can-didate has taken courses in editing or has been certified, but be aware that existing certification programs do not address the skills that editors need to work in non-anglophone settings . Before hiring, you may wish to com-mission one or a few assignments with the editor, in a freelance capacity, to assess the quality of the service and your ability to work together as a team .

If your department is too small to have its own full-time editor, one option is to establish a regular collaboration with a local freelance editor on a part-time basis . If you allow the editor access to your departmental meetings and your library, and encourage the development of personal interactions with your researchers, it may be possible to reap all the ben-efits of having an embedded departmental editor .

A final piece of advice is offered by Jackie Senior, who says “Having an in-house editor, alongside technicians, statisticians, and illustrators, is what makes a good department become an excellent one .” Her experience in the Department of Genetics is proof of that statement .

The Future of Author EditingAuthor editing can be an immensely satisfying career . Numerous aspects of our work provide personal and professional fulfillment, as revealed by an informal survey conducted by Barbara Gastel (2011) . About 10

198 Editing Research

manuscript editors, each with 10‒30 years’ experience, responded to the survey, enabling Gastel to summarize as follows: “sources of satisfaction and motivation regarding science editing included the abundance of intellec-tual stimulation; the opportunity for lifelong learning; the chance to help others and contribute to science and society; interactions with researchers, fellow editors, and others; and enjoyment of the editorial process itself ” (Gastel 2011) . Authors’ editors in particular can gain satisfaction from teaching their author‒clients and colleagues, collaborating with research teams and receiving their feedback, dealing with a variety of topics, and working independently .

There are, however, downsides to author editing that must be carefully managed . Editors who receive a relentless supply of requests to edit com-plex manuscripts are at risk of exhaustion, which may manifest as mental fatigue or computer use-related physical ailments . One solution to avoid-ing burnout and staying motivated is to seek job variety, by editing non-research genres (e .g . corporate literature, charity communications, patient materials, fiction) or by offering new services (e .g . journal management, language coaching) . These new services have the added benefit of helping refresh and expand one’s clientele .

A second source of concern comes from market factors that are favor-ing large editing service providers over microentrepreneurial, autonomous authors’ editors . Now that the main academic publishers have created their own editing services or have made arrangements with editing ser-vice providers, researchers are flooded with offers for editing and language polishing; even journals’ R&R peer review decisions are accompanied by recommendations for editing services . Some providers offer “group deals” allowing a department or entire university to purchase, at a discount, vouchers to cover the editing of tens of, or a hundred, research papers over the course of a year . As a result, autonomous authors’ editors risk having their businesses being choked off by the tentacles of large editing firms with a global reach . For the moment, there are many editing service providers competing among themselves, but we can expect, based on what is happening in the academic publishing industry (Larivière et al . 2015; Munroe 2007), that these providers will merge into a few, larger and more powerful companies . If they attract the interest of big finance, we may see them offering editing at rates so low that no tax-paying autonomous editor can compete . By analogy with current worldwide events in the taxi indus-try (Morozov 2016) and dental industry (Armstrong 2015; Pierce 2012), this worrisome prospect cannot be disregarded .

Synthesis and Projection 199

Another market challenge comes from the trend for universities to invite tenders for editing, proofreading, translation, and interpreting services (sometimes all in one bid!) . Although intended to streamline procurement and reduce administrative work for the university, these procedures create a level of bureaucracy that is much too complex and time-consuming to be worth an editor’s effort to apply for single editing assignments, and they may actually exclude experienced editors by setting misguided evaluation criteria (Matarese 2013c) . When the procurement is for an entire university, only large editing service providers can realistically bid . If the selection procedure prioritizes the lowest bidder or the firm that handles the most disciplines or languages, the university in the end risks paying more for poorer quality than when individual language profession-als are hired on a case-by-case basis . Although there is anecdotal evidence of such university-wide contracts, it is not clear if researchers with their own funding retain the liberty to choose editors or if they are obliged to use the contracted services .

A related issue is the emergence of deceitful “author service providers” that prey on researchers’ publications budgets by offering “shoddy editing services,” bogus research article writing, and promises to help authors get published, including authorship for sale (Cochran 2015) . In response to these concerns, efforts have begun to form the Coalition for Responsible Publication Resources2 which would define the “author services industry” (i .e . all those services that come into play before publication, such as illus-tration, database management, translation, and editing) and would set standards of practice, verify quality, and conduct annual audits . Validated service providers would then be able to display a “web-dynamic badge,” which potential clients would seek as evidence of quality and ethical behav-ior . If this initiative takes off, autonomous authors’ editors will have to sign up and pay dues (assuming they are not excluded from participating) .

Technological advances in publishing also present challenges for authors’ editors . Will clean-up macros develop to the point that human language editing is no longer needed? Perhaps, but it is also possible that technology will create new niches for authors’ editors . For example, there is growing excitement over the possibility that the current standard for the research article, namely the discrete, static document based on the print model, will be replaced by a “living document” that can be continuously amended and expanded (Shanahan 2015) or an “interactive publication” that contains embedded media elements (Thoma et al . 2010) . If these innovations become widely adopted, editors may need to learn to work at

200 Editing Research

the interface between content and code (e .g . Java and XML) . Furthermore, the use of new media forms of communication (e .g . blogs, tweets) will be increasingly common among researchers as they carve out for themselves a professional online profile (needed today to secure funding and be pro-moted) . Although these informal genres may not be thought to require editing, EAL scholars venturing into the blogosphere may appreciate the support of an authors’ editor in handling a new style of writing .

The research article itself is evolving in response to demands for greater transparency, openness, and reproducibility . Changes already being put into place at some journals include more detailed methods sections (e .g . publication of study protocols) and data sharing (e .g . depositing data in approved repositories) . A modular set of standards, called “Transparency and Openness Promotion” guidelines, was recently developed to help jour-nal editors understand and implement open reporting practices (Nosek et al . 2015) . What is needed, however, are complementary changes in academia . This point was emphasized by Macleod and colleagues in their introduction to The Lancet series on research waste:

[I]nstead of being judged on the basis of the impact factors of the journals in which their work is published, academics might be judged on the methodological rigour and full dis-semination of their research, the quality of their reports, and the reproducibility of their findings . If these factors were to contribute substantially to promotion, funding, and publica-tion decisions, institutions might even . . . pay more attention to continuation of professional development and appraisal of the research workforce . (Macleod et al . 2014)

The situation they envisage presents clear opportunities for authors’ editors . We can only hope that this heightened attention to the prob-lem of research waste presages a return to the employment of authors’ editors within research departments . A return, that is, in the few coun-tries where embedded authors’ editors were once common (e .g . United States, Netherlands, Finland), but also the spread of this practice to non- anglophone countries where researchers have great need for writing assis-tance but currently receive little institutional support or understanding . These countries include the main research-intensive nations of Europe (France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom) and Asia (Japan, South Korea), as well as emerging research nations such as Brazil, China,

Synthesis and Projection 201

and India, but also Iran, Turkey, and others . The growth of research and research publishing in China, including the creation of new English- language journals, is particularly impressive . This trend poses an imme-diate need for Chinese-fluent authors’ editors, and invites us to ponder the possibility that the rhetoric of research, as we know it today, is ready for metamorphosis .

Notes1 . On this point, I acknowledge Karen Shashok for having eloquently put into words,

in informal discussions, an idea that was germinating in my mind . Her expression is presented here in somewhat paraphrased form .

2 . www .rprcoalition .org

233

About the Author

Valerie Matarese is an autonomous authors’ editor . Her main activity is author editing in the biomedical sciences for researchers in Italy, where for almost 20 years she has worked in sole proprietorship . Addition-ally, she offers workshops in scientific writ-ing and teaches a 40-hour graduate-level course on how to write a research article in the biomolecular sciences . She also occa-sionally provides copy editing, develop-

mental editing, and science writing .Born in New York, Valerie trained in biochemistry and cell and molecu-

lar biology at Cornell University and the University of Minnesota (culmi-nating in a PhD in 1990), and worked as a researcher in university settings and at multinational firms on both coasts of the United States and in Italy . While working at an Italian pharmaceutical company, she was exposed to the challenges of writing (and speaking) about science in a second lan-guage, and became enticed about the possibility of using her academic English skills to support Italian researchers in their quests to publish . She thus began a career in editing, starting with serving as freelance copy edi-tor for several English-language medical journals produced in Italy and published by Springer . When market forces caused journal copy editing to be outsourced offshore, Valerie changed her focus from editing for pub-lishers to editing directly for researchers, helping them make their draft manuscripts fit for publication in peer-reviewed research journals—doing, in other words, “author editing .”

Throughout her editing career, Valerie has been concerned with the quality of scientific reporting and how to improve it locally . In 2008, she published a study that examined the relationship between the quality of biomedical research journals and the editorial leadership expressed by the journals’ instructions to authors . In 2013, she published her first book, an

234 Editing Research

edited volume entitled Supporting Research Writing: Roles and Challenges in Multilingual Settings. That multi-authored book explored the range of language-support services available to researchers who use English as an additional language, from the teaching of academic writing to translation and editing . Since the publication of Supporting Research Writing, she felt an increasing need to raise the profile of authors’ editors, by document-ing their work and their contributions to research communication . That strong personal interest motivated her to set aside time from editing to do the qualitative and bibliographic research that underlies the present volume, Editing Research .

If you enjoyed reading this chapter of Editing Research, you can order it from the following online retailers.