 |
| Photo: John Swan |
Editing
Blending authors' contributions into a seamless whole, anglicisation, rewriting contributions that missed the point or were just plain bad. You can see the difference when it's done, so money well spent.
Case history - anglicising and updating a psychiatry handbook
The US editors missed the deadline and evidently lacked enthusiasm. The project manager had a deadline to meet and asked me to go through the text, suggest updates and write some of the new stuff. Fortunately, because I write Research Digest, I was pretty much up to speed on clinical developments and, splitting the work between us, we met the deadline.
The editors did a bit too but, late in the day, we hit copyright issues. I had to rewrite one chapter in two new versions - that is, rephrase everything to make it different from the original, twice. The first go was hard enough, but doing it again...
Case history - taking over half way through
This was an interesting project to develop a CD-ROM teaching programme for pharmacists combining a clinical and practical approach. The publisher came to me after two modules had been written. Problem one: they lacked the necessary focus and depth of information. Problem two: the client wanted to see the first one very soon. I rewrote that module in a couple of days, adding to it substantially, then did the next. Over the following months I wrote the remaining four from scratch and did some MCQs for each one. With some very welcome editorial input, the modules have gone through internal approval relatively smoothly.
Case history - CPPE open learning courses
These courses were written by a multidisciplinary team under the leadership of an editor and writer. Team members were pharmacists or nurses with clinical or organisational roles in the relevant areas. They knew their stuff but couldn't always write well or to the brief. (That's not a criticism - they were bringing clinical experience, not writing skills.) Furthermore, not everything they wrote was needed: some was duplicated, some was redundant.
I had a clear view of what should be included, what the 'house' style should be, and who should do what. I agreed content, provided notes on style, and offered support. I edited their contributions and returned them. I incorporated their feedback when it improved the piece but we didn't always see eye to eye. Still, someone's got to have the final word and I think it's the editor.