[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [Fwd: Inorganica Chimica Acta (2006) 359: 383-387]
- To: ps@iucr.org, "IUCr Committee on Electronic Publishing, Dissemination and Storage of Information" <epc@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [Fwd: Inorganica Chimica Acta (2006) 359: 383-387]
- From: Howard Flack <crystal@flack.ch>
- Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:18:14 +0100
- In-reply-to: <200612150912.29046.ps@iucr.org>
- References: <4582504C.2080401@Flack.ch> <200612150912.29046.ps@iucr.org>
> I think that such services are not the main solution to the problem of poorly > written papers, but they may be useful in a limited number of cases. I agree. The responsibility is definitely with the authors. I was very very very irritated recently by the attitude of one of the authors of a paper that I refereed for one of the IUCr's journals. The paper was a multi-author paper with the majority of the authors (including the contact author) coming from and residing in a non-English speaking country, and two others residing in an English-speaking country. One of the latter is definitely born in the aforesaid country and holds its citzenship and nationality of which he is very proud, and hence speaks and writes English fluently. The editor who sent me the paper for refereeing has the same nationality as the contact author. He makes the same characteristic mistakes in writing English as the contact author and with which the manuscript was full. One can not read the text without noticing the mistakes in the English and wishing to correct them. In my report I wrote that the English needed correcting and the native English-speaking authors should undertake this task. There were also some mistakes in the science that I pointed out. As is usual in such a case, the paper came back to me for comment after correction by the authors. The English had not been improved at all. I complained again but this time faxed my hand-written English corrections to the editor (so they would stop being a nuisance to me and send me the paper yet again). The editor thanked me profusely (he owes me a beer now) and then told me that the contact author had unsuccessfully pressurized the English-speaking author to correct the text but this person was too busy to undertake the task. I think the offender never read the manuscript. This paper is an international collaboration and part of the responsibility of the English-speaking authors is to correct the text and not just get yet another publication. If this particular person stands up in public (or private) and starts pontificating on the responsibilites of scientists (as he is wont to do) he can expect to hear a mouthful of cynical abuse from me! > I cheerfully claim that much of my original draft was clever, > witty, urbane, profound and subtle. Nicola's careful editing removed > most of these sparkling attributes Are you wishing to state that one of the attributes of an IUCr Senior Editorial Assistant is a capacity to write monosyllabic English. If this is so, why did they complain so much about me at school? H. _______________________________________________ Epc mailing list Epc@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/epc
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- [Fwd: Inorganica Chimica Acta (2006) 359: 383-387] (Howard Flack)
- Re: [Fwd: Inorganica Chimica Acta (2006) 359: 383-387] (Pete Strickland)
- Prev by Date: Re: [Fwd: Inorganica Chimica Acta (2006) 359: 383-387]
- Next by Date: Re: [Fwd: Inorganica Chimica Acta (2006) 359: 383-387]
- Prev by thread: Re: [Fwd: Inorganica Chimica Acta (2006) 359: 383-387]
- Next by thread: Re: [Fwd: Inorganica Chimica Acta (2006) 359: 383-387]
- Index(es):