Jan 2013
Does technical editing really improve your manuscript?
There are a seemingly endless number of hurdles one has to jump over in order to get your scientific or medical manuscript published. One of the most frustrating can be conforming to journal style. This usually means wading through pages of author instructions, re-writing and re-structuring the paper to meet strict ‘in-house’ requirements, formatting figures, and changing the reference style. While some of this burden used to be shouldered by the journal itself (hence justifying the exorbitant publishing fees), there seems to be a shift to ‘passing the buck’ to the author/scientist/general dog’s body (see here). This is epitomised by the editorial policy at PLOS One, where the copyediting is the responsibility of the author in its entirety.
So is all this editing worth it?
Well, a Cochrane review on the subject suggests the answer is ‘yes’. You can read the whole document here, but it is a dry and slightly laborious read so we’ll summarise it for you:
- peer review and journal editing improve the ‘readability’ of manuscripts
- detailed author instructions improve a paper
- structured abstracts can improve a paper
- technical editing improves the accuracy of references
The magnitude of benefit of ‘technical editing’ (i.e. those steps that occur from acceptance through to publication) are relatively small, mind you. This comes as no surprise to us. In our experience that isn’t where most authors’ manuscripts fall short of excellent. That is not why they are failing to get accepted. Technical flaws are easy to fix (and we can do it for you, see here).
No, it is those elements which are slightly harder to quantify which make or break a paper (particularly in higher impact or general journals). Are the hypothesis and aims clearly stated? Is the most significant result presented with clarity, or is it obfuscated by unnecessary detail? Is there unnecessary use of confusing jargon? Is there repetition both within and between sections? Is the discussion overly long and is this due to over-interpretation of results (usually a problem in short descriptive clinical papers)?
That is why Nextgenediting offers more than just copyediting. Copyediting is just the basics, as far as we’re concerned. Our concept is that we should firstly understand your science (by using expert editors), and only then will we be able to perform the type of structural and conceptual changes which are required to perfect your work. Sometimes that’ll be collaborative (you know the most about your work), but that’s we’re here to read and re-read until we’ve sculpted your words into something better than they were before.
So yes, technical editing is worth it, but be aware you will get so much more from our services. We know you won’t be disappointed.
comments powered by Disqus
So is all this editing worth it?
Well, a Cochrane review on the subject suggests the answer is ‘yes’. You can read the whole document here, but it is a dry and slightly laborious read so we’ll summarise it for you:
- peer review and journal editing improve the ‘readability’ of manuscripts
- detailed author instructions improve a paper
- structured abstracts can improve a paper
- technical editing improves the accuracy of references
The magnitude of benefit of ‘technical editing’ (i.e. those steps that occur from acceptance through to publication) are relatively small, mind you. This comes as no surprise to us. In our experience that isn’t where most authors’ manuscripts fall short of excellent. That is not why they are failing to get accepted. Technical flaws are easy to fix (and we can do it for you, see here).
No, it is those elements which are slightly harder to quantify which make or break a paper (particularly in higher impact or general journals). Are the hypothesis and aims clearly stated? Is the most significant result presented with clarity, or is it obfuscated by unnecessary detail? Is there unnecessary use of confusing jargon? Is there repetition both within and between sections? Is the discussion overly long and is this due to over-interpretation of results (usually a problem in short descriptive clinical papers)?
That is why Nextgenediting offers more than just copyediting. Copyediting is just the basics, as far as we’re concerned. Our concept is that we should firstly understand your science (by using expert editors), and only then will we be able to perform the type of structural and conceptual changes which are required to perfect your work. Sometimes that’ll be collaborative (you know the most about your work), but that’s we’re here to read and re-read until we’ve sculpted your words into something better than they were before.
So yes, technical editing is worth it, but be aware you will get so much more from our services. We know you won’t be disappointed.
comments powered by Disqus
How can you afford not to?
As if thinking up ideas, writing grants, planning experiments, hiring staff, performing experiments, suffering the lows of failed experiments, relishing the highs of successful experiments, interpreting data, giving talks, going to conferences, being criticised, being commended, writing grants (did I mention that?), writing papers, supervising, teaching, marking, lecturing, course planning, peer reviewing, journal editing, and (if you are clinically trained) treating patients weren’t enough!
Breathe.
These days, particularly with some of the open access journals, if you want to publish you now have to be copy editor, graphic designer, computer geek, desktop publisher, artist, statistician, and expert in ethics and governance. The English must be perfect, the grammar impeccable, and perhaps most importantly, you must be able to communicate the importance of all your hard work.
Breathe.
You need to be fluent in Photoshop, Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Adobe Acrobat, SPSS, Endnote, and Reference Manager. Depending on what you’re doing, you might need to be able to code in R or use LaTeX. You need to navigate author guidelines, file submission systems, and image and table formatting guidelines. Get it wrong and - ping! - the manuscript comes straight back.
All a bit of a heartsink, right?
Of course that’s where we come in and say, “Well, Nextgenediting can do all of that for you”. And that’s right, we can, but if you are not familiar with using professional science editing services, you may have doubts about how much time you can save, and how much the service costs. With tightening budgets and a cold funding climate, forking out a few hundred pounds can seem a little steep.
So what is the real cost of professional science editing?
Well, let’s look first at what the actual cost of editing is as a proportion of total publication costs (i.e. not including research costs). In the table below there are some indicative examples of publishing costs for a few standard research articles to typical journals. The cost of professional editing is presented as a percentage of total publishing cost. A few assumptions have been made: you are publishing colour figures, you have selected open access publishing, and you have submitted your article to one other journal (where it was rejected - a sad but real fact for most authors). Your time is worth about £30/$50 an hour, and you have spent 12 hours preparing the first submission, and 4 hours on the second. All prices are GBP, and there are 1.6 USD to the pound.
So what are the messages here?
Firstly, professional editing is on average only 10% (range 3.4%-17.9%) of the total cost of publishing. Just publishing. As a proportion of the total value of the research, it is likely to be a tiny, tiny fraction of that, for most biomedical subjects.
Think of what you get for that, with Nextgenediting at least (see our prices and payment options here). Collaborative editing, so that your science is presented in the best possible way: logical flow, clear statement of aims and hypothesis, contextual improvements in your writing. Perfect spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Your manuscript has its hand held through to acceptance, however many re-edits that requires. You don’t have to worry about journal formatting, because we do that for you.
But the column to really study is the cost of professional editing vs your time. We are cheap compared to you. Editing your own work is a false economy.
Think about what that time could be spent on: writing grants, planning experiments, hiring staff, performing experiments, suffering the lows of failed experiments, relishing the highs of successful experiments, interpreting data, giving talks, going to conferences, being criticised, being commended, writing grants (did I mention that?), writing more papers, supervising, teaching, marking, lecturing, course planning, peer reviewing, journal editing, and (if you are clinically trained) treating patients.
Or, if like most of us, preparing manuscripts happens out of office hours, how about more time with the family or doing the things you enjoy doing?
Food for thought. We’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter.
comments powered by Disqus
Breathe.
These days, particularly with some of the open access journals, if you want to publish you now have to be copy editor, graphic designer, computer geek, desktop publisher, artist, statistician, and expert in ethics and governance. The English must be perfect, the grammar impeccable, and perhaps most importantly, you must be able to communicate the importance of all your hard work.
Breathe.
You need to be fluent in Photoshop, Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Adobe Acrobat, SPSS, Endnote, and Reference Manager. Depending on what you’re doing, you might need to be able to code in R or use LaTeX. You need to navigate author guidelines, file submission systems, and image and table formatting guidelines. Get it wrong and - ping! - the manuscript comes straight back.
All a bit of a heartsink, right?
Of course that’s where we come in and say, “Well, Nextgenediting can do all of that for you”. And that’s right, we can, but if you are not familiar with using professional science editing services, you may have doubts about how much time you can save, and how much the service costs. With tightening budgets and a cold funding climate, forking out a few hundred pounds can seem a little steep.
So what is the real cost of professional science editing?
Well, let’s look first at what the actual cost of editing is as a proportion of total publication costs (i.e. not including research costs). In the table below there are some indicative examples of publishing costs for a few standard research articles to typical journals. The cost of professional editing is presented as a percentage of total publishing cost. A few assumptions have been made: you are publishing colour figures, you have selected open access publishing, and you have submitted your article to one other journal (where it was rejected - a sad but real fact for most authors). Your time is worth about £30/$50 an hour, and you have spent 12 hours preparing the first submission, and 4 hours on the second. All prices are GBP, and there are 1.6 USD to the pound.
So what are the messages here?
Firstly, professional editing is on average only 10% (range 3.4%-17.9%) of the total cost of publishing. Just publishing. As a proportion of the total value of the research, it is likely to be a tiny, tiny fraction of that, for most biomedical subjects.
Think of what you get for that, with Nextgenediting at least (see our prices and payment options here). Collaborative editing, so that your science is presented in the best possible way: logical flow, clear statement of aims and hypothesis, contextual improvements in your writing. Perfect spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Your manuscript has its hand held through to acceptance, however many re-edits that requires. You don’t have to worry about journal formatting, because we do that for you.
But the column to really study is the cost of professional editing vs your time. We are cheap compared to you. Editing your own work is a false economy.
Think about what that time could be spent on: writing grants, planning experiments, hiring staff, performing experiments, suffering the lows of failed experiments, relishing the highs of successful experiments, interpreting data, giving talks, going to conferences, being criticised, being commended, writing grants (did I mention that?), writing more papers, supervising, teaching, marking, lecturing, course planning, peer reviewing, journal editing, and (if you are clinically trained) treating patients.
Or, if like most of us, preparing manuscripts happens out of office hours, how about more time with the family or doing the things you enjoy doing?
Food for thought. We’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter.
comments powered by Disqus
Happy 2013, and prosperous publishing to you all!
With the arrival of the New Year, the Nextgenediting team has decided to be more than just a faceless company and talk more directly with you, our visitors and customers - so here is the new Nextgenediting blog! Over the coming weeks, months, and hopefully years we intend to post regular snippets on what is going on inside the medical and science editing community, plus much, much more.
Here at Nextgenediting we’re not content just doing the day job - all of us have a passionate interest in science and medicine so we will bring you the best of what’s happening in basic and clinical science across the globe. We will keep a particular eye on publishing trends, news and developments from the publishers, and hints and tips on how to improve your manuscript submissions and achieve the highest impact. We’ll also let you know how you can use the latest technology to improve your papers, and keep you informed on what we’re doing to make our services better for you. Some of it will be serious, some technical, but we hope to develop a more informal style and try to keep you entertained. While we take our jobs very seriously indeed, we also believe there is some room in science for humour and entertainment!
We are on the regular lookout for new editors and we will use this blog - along with social media - to let you know when we are recruiting, so keep looking and sign up for our Twitter and Facebook pages. Our aim is not to be didactic, so please comment and contribute. We love to hear your feedback and by doing so we believe we will continue to achieve our (informal) motto - to exceed your expectations.
We are genuinely looking forward to having this conversation with you in 2013. Drop us an email if you have any thoughts or suggestions.
Best wishes to you all.
The Nextgenediting Team.
comments powered by Disqus
VESDAV8M3N74
Here at Nextgenediting we’re not content just doing the day job - all of us have a passionate interest in science and medicine so we will bring you the best of what’s happening in basic and clinical science across the globe. We will keep a particular eye on publishing trends, news and developments from the publishers, and hints and tips on how to improve your manuscript submissions and achieve the highest impact. We’ll also let you know how you can use the latest technology to improve your papers, and keep you informed on what we’re doing to make our services better for you. Some of it will be serious, some technical, but we hope to develop a more informal style and try to keep you entertained. While we take our jobs very seriously indeed, we also believe there is some room in science for humour and entertainment!
We are on the regular lookout for new editors and we will use this blog - along with social media - to let you know when we are recruiting, so keep looking and sign up for our Twitter and Facebook pages. Our aim is not to be didactic, so please comment and contribute. We love to hear your feedback and by doing so we believe we will continue to achieve our (informal) motto - to exceed your expectations.
We are genuinely looking forward to having this conversation with you in 2013. Drop us an email if you have any thoughts or suggestions.
Best wishes to you all.
The Nextgenediting Team.
comments powered by Disqus
VESDAV8M3N74