Literature Review
Unveiling the Editor
Since the general public tends to misinterpret the responsibilities of editors, I would first like to touch upon the different duties that editing entails. According to Buehler (1981), people often view editors as merely meek assistants to the authors, or sometimes worse. Some writers view editors as “grammatical guard dogs,” distorters of information, and stubborn, bureaucratic gatekeepers (Buehler, 1981; Sparks, 2014). Interesting enough, these misinterpretations are shared across many fields, from technical writing spheres to the world of academic journals.
While writers’ negative interactions with some editors should not be overlooked, many editors facilitate a multitude of indispensable, skillful tasks. In fact, editing is such an important process that some companies have entire editorial teams to carry out all the necessary responsibilities. Buehler (1981) highlights the nine types of edits involved in preparing a manuscript for publication, two of which I will highlight to emphasize the important role that editors play in inclusion activism.
The first type of edit is the coordination edit, which entails attending, planning and scheduling meetings, relaying information to authors, preparing specifications and estimations, coordinating production costs, and maintaining contact with people in all parts of the publication process. In big editorial teams, certain editors will be delegated the duties of the coordination edit, but nonetheless at least one editor for this process is essential. Editors in this stage are primarily communicators and liaisons for writers.
Returning back to Sparks (2014), editors are instrumental in networking and relaying information from and to different faucets of the publishing process. To do this, one must possess competent skills in group communication and must also be inclusive to many types of workers and people. Sparks also states that editors should in addition serve as mentors.
In fact, editors who also consider themselves mentors to writers are essential in inclusion activism in the field of editing. Inclusion activism is a vital part of my research topic. It is basically the “. . . intentional effort to ensure participation and access as well as leadership opportunities to people of all backgrounds, at all career stages” (Blewett, LaVacchia, Micciche, & Morris, 2019). According to Blewett et al. (2019), scholarly journals heavily shape academic fields, but editors heavily shape those journals. The reason why inclusion activism is so necessary in the first place is because if we create a hierarchy where less diverse material is published, then society’s quality of knowledge suffers as well as the state of underrepresented minorities. One of the most noteworthy thoughts from this article is that editors should serve to mentor diverse writers from diverse, and potentially underrepresented, backgrounds. In doing so, they help authors and scholars effectively represent unique linguistic and cultural practices.
This concept is heavily intertwined with ideas found in Daniell’s article “Literacy, Rhetoric, Identity, and Agency.” Daniell (2012) assesses the state of literacy as a product of agency when combined with rhetorical principles. Literacy is cultural and simultaneously transnational, while rhetoric is the necessary catalyst for social change. Daniell relates these ideas to how the Hmong community of the United States combats prejudice while also building their identities on American soil through literature. In order for their message to be properly received, though, they have to rhetorically write for American audiences. In this case, it would be the editor’s role to be a mentor to Hmong writers by representing them and staying true to their message while simultaneously enhancing the rhetorical quality of the texts for the intended audience.
This, again, relates to Bhueler’s model of the nine types of language edits. The only other type of edit I will touch upon is the language edit. The language edit includes correcting grammar, checking for conciseness, checking for proper use of narration, exposition, narrative and argument, checking for fluency, and checking for language parallelism, among many other things. This is by no means a small task. Despite the seeming inflexibility of some of these corrections, Bhueler states: “ . . . a language edit goes beyond the mere applications of grammatical and syntactic rules. We think that an editor should never sacrifice the essence of communication to a convenient application of fabricated rules, methods, procedures, or conditions” (pp. 29). To be an editor at this stage means more than following imposed rules; it always means feeling the balance that will preserve the author’s intent during the revision process.
Of course, this places tons of responsibility on an editor, which is why editing is a highly collaborative process in many different contexts. I already mentioned the entity of the editorial team, but there are other methods of facilitating inclusion and teamwork during the editing process.
In order to not stifle meaning through one editor’s bias, editors invite reviewers to evaluate manuscripts during the revision process to offer their opinions. Referring back to Blewett et al., reviewers provide a different field of knowledge along with new biases, which are important to at least take into consideration before publication. For example, some scientific journals include editors, scientists, along with various reviewers for the peer review process. All three different groups will offer different suggestions, but the value of their opinions are equal during peer review.
It is essential to understand what exactly is peer review. Peer review is a self-explanatory term, which refers to the subjection of a manuscript to evaluation by others in the same field. According to Tennant (2018), “Peer review is purported to serve many functions, including quality control as a screening mechanism, legitimation of scientific research and the self-regulation of scientific communities.” A category of peer review is exemplified in Lehrner-Mayer’s article about style guides. She designs and updates her company’s style guide to better serve the technical writers working with her. Even though she is in charge of this project, she heavily relies on the input of her colleagues. The company style guide must build off of writers’ experiences as much as industry standards (Lehrner-Mayer, 2013). Despite the fact that a style guide implies the existence of one set style standard, not every writer follows the writing guide. The less people follow the style guide, the greater the need to return the style guide to a peer review process. Admittedly, editing a style guide is different than editing manuscripts for publication.
Despite the commonality of peer review and the general positivity towards it in the majority of my sources, Tennant (2018) warns of the perils of peer review. There is controversy over how to properly lead peer review and the wide range of opinions proves to be a sturdy obstacle in the road towards standardization. Due to the wide variance of methods of peer review, there is little way to prove the actual usefulness of it compared to less time-consuming methods of editing. Returning back to Blewett et al., the editors also have substantial control over who participates in peer review, which could stifle the inclusion aspect inherent in peer review. Regardless, it is apparent that editors possess a lot of control over the circulation of information, which is a power that can be used poorly, or it can be used for good.