Technical Editing part 1. Laura Mellor (John Wiley) Margaret Cooter (BMJ). Workshop aims. Ensure that Cochrane Reviews are reported as clearly, succinctly and accurately as possible Improve quality Increase accessibility. Plan: workshop 1. What is good technical editing?
Laura Mellor (John Wiley)
Margaret Cooter (BMJ)
Also: please help us by wearing your name badges!
For the purposes of the workshops, we define technical editing as:
Data & fact checking
Interaction of the components makes for a readable, accessible product
Substantive editing accessible product
Data & fact checking
“Technical editors are one of the key groups of implementers and problem solvers for journal content.”
BMJ Paper 303362
Technical editor: Clare Griffith; tel: 020 7383 6691; email: [email protected]
NB: We are now posting research articles online before print publication. When you return your proofs and we have processed your changes WE WILL POST IT STRAIGHT AWAY ON bmj.com
PLEASE CHECK THE PROOF CAREFULLY AS ONCE THE PAPER HAS BEEN POSTED IT IS DIFFICULT AND EXPENSIVE TO CHANGE IT
Visible codes for electronic publishing (eg [t1] for tables and [f1] for figures, and <thin> for spacing in large numbers) will not appear in the final version. Alignment of tables will be improved.
Footnote and mathematical symbols may not translate properly. They will be correct in the published version.
Please check that all queries to author [indicated by bold square brackets] have been answered.
Building on enthusiasm
Keeping up to date
Striving for relevance
Enabling wide participation
“Cochrane reviews should be easy to…understand by someone with a basic sense of the topic who may not necessarily be an expert in the area.”
“Some explanation of terms and concepts is likely to be helpful…too much explanation can detract from the readability of a review. Simplicity andclarity are also vital to readability.”
“The readability of Cochrane reviews should be comparable to that of a well-written article in a general medical journal.”
Where does Cochrane fit in the EBM literature? accessible product
Haynes RB. “Of studies, syntheses, synopses, and systems: the “4S” evolution of services for finding current best evidence.” ACP Journal Club (2001 March-April; 134(2):A11-3.)
“More than 60% (40/79) used the guidance correctly.”
“352 participants (treatment a = 115, treatment b = 117,control = 121)
Query blank fields in tables, enter ‘n/a’ or similar if you know they are supposed be blank
Abstract “A significant reduction in use of rescue medication was observed in the treatment group compared with the control group (p=0.002)”
Results “A significant reduction in use of rescue medication was observed in the treatment group compared with the control group (p=0.0002)”
Outback murder courtroom drama
Heart valve durability evaluation procedures
Procedures to evaluate the durability of heart valves
This is especially problematic with “this”. Does it refer to a general concept, perhaps in the previous sentence? This will need to be stated clearly.
“It is likely that it will rain” becomes “It may rain.”
“It is possible that this will happen” becomes “This may happen”
There have been no serious adverse events attributable to the vaccines.
No serious adverse events attributable to the vaccines have occurred.
Maeve O’Connor, author of How to Copyedit Scientific Books and Journals