General Information
Scientific Editing provides editorial services to faculty and staff at UT Health Science Center. Our goal is to assist you in publishing well-written, appropriately organized scientific manuscripts in the format and style required by the publisher. In addition, we consult on publication strategies and present courses, seminars, and workshops on topics related to scientific communication.
What We Do
Edit grant proposals, journal articles, book chapters, symposium articles and proceedings, and other scientific publications.
Teach courses, workshops, and seminars on aspects of scientific communication, including the publication process, grammar review, preparing effective tables and figures, ethical issues in publishing, and oral presentation skills.
Consult on publication strategies, communicating with journal editors/referees and book publishers, grammar, and book proposals.
Assist with various scientific publishing activities such as obtaining copyrights and reviewing publishing contracts.
What Is Editing?
Editing is an iterative process that seeks the most effective communication possible, within given time and resource constraints.
Copyediting involves grammar, punctuation, appropriate format, scientific style conventions, and consistency.
Substantive editing requiring more time and communication between author and editor, deals with organization, rational development of ideas and hypotheses, and effective data presentation (e.g., designing tables and figures).
Editorial assistance can be beneficial at almost any point in the publication process. For example, presubmission editing can involve both substantive editing and copy editing to improve the effectiveness of your communication or strategy and to ensure appropriate journal style. Postsubmission editing can help you respond to the reviewers' and editor's comments and suggestions for changes.
The editorial process is one of revision and improvement and usually includes the following five steps:
- Author and editor discuss the manuscript, deadlines, and specific requirements.
- Editor edits the manuscript.
- Author reviews the edited manuscript and addresses the editor's queries.
- Author and editor discuss queries and changes.
- Author incorporates final changes into the manuscript.
Editing can be done on paper or online (electronic file). Online editing allows the editor to make typographic and grammatical changes to the word processing file, thereby eliminating the time to transfer editorial changes from paper to the electronic file.
With both paper and online editing, a query list is provided for substantive, technical, and organizational questions.
Submission Checklist
Submit your manuscript by mail or in person. These materials and information are necessary to edit your manuscript:
- Corresponding author's name, campus address and telephone number, and deadline if appropriate.
- Complete, typed manuscript with all components double-spaced. For online editing, use Microsoft Word, or WordPerfect.
- All components: title page, abstract, text, reference list, tables, legends for figures.
- Tables and figures.
- Photocopies of references cited (if references are to be verified).
- Current instructions to authors from the journal chosen for submission.
- Sample article containing tables and figures from a recent issue of the journal.
We can ensure correct reference format and style for text and bibliography, but the author is ultimately responsible for accuracy and completeness. Obtaining permission to use copyrighted materials is also the author's responsibility.
Editorial work is scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis. There are no fees for this service.
You May Want to Call If . . .
- A journal editor returned your manuscript with the suggestion that it be shortened or the style and grammar be improved.
- Your grant proposal is complete but may be difficult for reviewers to follow because of the varying styles of the investigators who contributed to it.
- A paper has been returned to you by a journal editor or book publisher with editorial changes that you don't understand or agree with.
- You are interested in workshops or seminars on preparing oral or written scientific material.
- You have a question about grammar or scientific style.
Responding to Journal Editors and Reviewers
You've just received the verdict on your most recently submitted article: "We will reconsider your manuscript for publication if you make the changes recommended by the reviewers." After reading the changes requested by the reviewers, your blood pressure soars, your ears ring, and you wonder how such a respected journal's editor could have asked such an ill-informed person to review manuscripts.
First, calm down. Neither panic at the thought of never getting published nor anger toward the editor or reviewers is healthy, although perhaps both reactions are normal.
Second, set the letter aside. After several days have passed, reread the letter as objectively as possible. Correct the misspellings and make the stylistic changes requested if they don't change your meaning.
Now you can begin to deal with the substantive issues. The sole purpose of the review process should be to strengthen the presentation of your research results and interpretation.
The key to responding to editors and reviewers is to remember that you don't have to agree with every recommendation. But if you disagree, you must respond and justify your disagreement.
For example, let's say a reviewer suggests you should have used a different methodology (one that the reviewer no doubt developed just last year). You might add a brief paragraph to your manuscript indicating those methodologies you considered and reasons for rejecting them. This approach could strengthen your article by providing other researchers with useful information.
On the other hand, you might indicate your reasons for rejecting the particular methodology in your letter to the editor, subtly suggesting that the reviewer had an unwarranted bias against methodologies other than his or her own.
Most often, reviewers provide very helpful suggestions. When your reaction to a comment is "But the reviewer didn't understand my point," perhaps your point wasn't presented clearly in the first place. Adding a phrase or a sentence can often eliminate confusion.
When a reviewer makes a comment that you genuinely believe is inappropriate, you can ignore it or you can express your belief in your response to the editor.
In summary, you can disagree with reviewers' comments, but you must respond by justifying your disagreement.
Contact: David Armbruster [0]