Q. You’ve spent years helping writers write, what do you see as the main markers of fluent prose? How do you help your authors retain their own voice while ensuring that the writing is clear and compelling?
A. Fluent prose – that is, what readers may read and understand without struggling to grasp the author’s meaning – depends on the author’s ability to make points concisely and clearly. George Orwell’s six rules for writing sum this up (not that I’m a lover of rules; I’m also aware that Orwell didn’t have in mind, say, technical writing by STEM specialists). Many of the academic authors whose work I see tend to write lengthy, multi-clause sentences, often in the passive voice (and with all the ponderous author self-effacement that produces) and using very clichéd and metaphorical expression. Redundancy is rife. Reading the work of other academic writers doesn’t help personal writing and I don’t think I err in assuming that students get limited (if any) practical support on how to write a thesis or a journal article. All authors (I, too) need an editor. As for ‘own voice’, much of what I read by academics lacks identifiable voice, so enthusiastic are they to adopt as their own the hackneyed expression of others. Personal voice comes over better in shorter sentences – but varied in length – as does meaning. Listening to your own writing is a must: I read aloud (or aloud in my head) all that I write.
Q. Do you find yourself having to tailor your approach author to author, or are there strategies that you employ consistently? If so, do you have any pithy advice for the academic writers reading this?
A. Every author is an individual, whose writing may or may not be. To the first of these two questions: yes. The consistency of my approach lies in a combination of: judicious re-working of prose that in its current form simply does not make sense; using marginal notes to indicate where authors need to re-think, with a suggestion of my own to illustrate; commenting on particular writing conventions, if they’re relevant; celebrating what has been done well. In addition, I summarise in my first note my overall impression as a critical friend (making that role explicit), identifying areas for improvement.
If you’re an academic writer, don’t be precious and defensive about what you’ve written; trust me as an objective, alert and wide-ranging general reader who wishes your article or thesis well. You have specialised in your chosen area of study and your prowess in it will be enhanced if you are open to support with how best to present your points.
Q. How did you get into this line of work? And what has kept you in the role?
A. My career specialism, in education, has been in helping others across the age and ability range to write. Professional colleagues realised that my guidance and support was helpful to them and I found myself asked to produce institutional documentation and magazines and regular news bulletins. Such publications had previously been unedited or did not exist at all and were embarrassingly inadequate for purpose. That led to external organisations – such as the printers of some of what I produced who needed their own website to be comprehensively edited.
I know that I am fallible (for example, I may occasionally misinterpret an author’s intended meaning), that there may be authors who guard their work from intervention and that other editors are more pedantic than I, but I love good writing and delight in helping others to develop their written skills.
Q. Research is increasingly collaborative. Do you have any advice to the corresponding author when working with contributing authors?
A. It’s often the case that collaborative writers recognise that one of their number has the capacity to present for both or all of them. I rarely find an article with discrete sections written by a series of individuals, though if that’s the case, it’s clearly a choice that I accept. I certainly do value consistency in everything, including authorial voice, and recommend that whoever does the writing adopts the approach I’ve already mentioned, to ensure that the meaning of all is precisely rendered. There should be no indication to the reader that this is not a truly shared publication. What I don’t like to see is the supervisor’s name heading the list of authors, when that person has really contributed very little to the substance of the piece.
Q. You work on both types of journals, OA and subscription. One of the surprisingly persistent misconceptions about OA journals is that they’re lesser quality. Are there any demonstrable differences in the writing between the two types of journals as you see it?
A. My work is exclusively for open access journals. That doesn’t mean that I don’t read subscription journal articles and I know that the quality of submissions in both types varies enormously. What I have said so far will suggest that effective editing is the only means of making any journal issue consistent in quality. If one proficient editor covers all the content of an issue, then the journal will, over time, achieve a reputation for excellence. Referencing is one hugely significant area of production: as any academic librarian will confirm, it is vital that citations are discoverable and that the reference list conforms precisely to the particular referencing style adopted by the journal.
Thank you for giving me the chance to say what I’m about in my editing of copy. I’d like to finish by adding that I’m aware that journal articles are submitted by an increasingly non-academic range of authors, including technicians and learning support personnel. Authors come from all over the world and from contrasting educational experiences. I believe that editors can do much to include all submissions in very unobtrusive ways: my satisfaction lies in seeing articles by those with far more challenges to their writing stand side by side, with no appreciable difference in quality, with pieces by previously much more well-supported writers.
(Interview conducted by Brigitte Shull)
Gold Leaf 