Reread some feedback from a journal editor after a couple of days, and while I still disagree with it, it’s at least more reasonable than I remembered it being.
Similar Posts:
Another set of proofs, another set of complaints about a copyeditor making changes to my writing in ways that distort my meaning. If I get grumpy about a human doing my writing for me, why would I ever want generative AI to do it?
Another paper, another fight with copyeditors about not capitalizing danah boyd’s name.
Journal copyeditors are great when they fix things, but when they break my sentences and don’t ask questions about “[information removed for blinding]”, I wonder what the point is.
Journal copyeditor changed a bunch of first-person language in our abstract to third-person “the authors,” and I am peeved.
It annoys me when a journal asks a reviewer to address specific prompts; it annoys me more when I only realize this after writing my review.
Comments:
You can click on the < button in the top-right of your browser window to read and write comments on this post with Hypothesis. You can read more about how I use this software here.
Any Webmentions from Micro.blog will also be displayed below: