Carol Kinney Student ID 503951 JRN349-AE Writing Assignment 2 March 17, 2013 Macro editing, much like macroeconomics (Brooks and Pinson 56), deals more with the larger “picture” in the editing process than with the more minute “details” of grammar, punctuation and language rules that micro editing entails. In other words, macro editing has a different role in the process of editing than what is commonly assumed when the word editing is considered. David Farkas calls this difference “substantive versus surface (1986)” editing. Brooks and Pinson also refer to this as the difference between copy editing and proofreading (53). To further explain the difference, Brooks and Pinson present six different processes that are covered under the umbrella of macro editing. The authors state that those processes include “making sure” of the worthiness of stories and leads, leaving no question “unanswered”, ensuring the accuracy and objectivity of what is presented, and considering the impact that the stories have upon the audience in terms of sensitivity, legalities, tastefulness and “ethical” issues. Farkas says that the role that these processes play in editing are important because editors are to be the “readers’ advocate[s],” which agrees with Brooks’ and Pinson’s assessment. Farkas also says that although “surface editing” is important, micro editing cannot address all of the issues that may arise in the editing process; it is “limited” in its ability to provide a “final document” that is adequate in providing “value” of the stories to the reader. In order for the reader to find value in a story, the reader must find it to be worthy, “well-organized (Brooks and Pinson 66), and address any potential “questions in a reader’s mind (Brooks and Pinson 68),” contain only “accurate (Brooks and Pinson 69)” details, information and quotes. As part of the macro editing process, it is also important to not over sensationalize the stories and include “hoaxes and [u]rban legends (Brooks and Pinson 73) that
provide not only inaccurate details, but altogether false stories that are nothing more than glorified gossip. Brooks and Pinson also describe in great detail how checking data in terms of numbers is important to the editing process in order to avoid “misleading (77)” the audience. Brooks, Pinson and Farkas all advocate for macro editing as an essential part of the presentation or publication process, however there is a new school of thought that may affect all editing, especially macro. Instead of paying subscriptions to scholarly journal publishing houses which also provide macro editing of all research papers presented by college and university professors, staff, and students, colleges and universities are advocating for open access. While open access has the good intentions of allowing all students, researchers and the general public to have free, unlimited access to scholarly papers via the internet, this open access does not fully consider the importance of the editorial process. For example, the Budapest Open Access Initiative states the following: “By ‘open access’ to [peer-reviewed research literature], we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited (2012).” This statement, which has been adopted by many prestigious campuses including Cambridge, Harvard, Cornell and Stanford, the initiative highlights “peer-reviewed” articles and research papers over those that are professionally edited. This opens up a whole other debate. Phil Davis, an independent researcher and publishing consultant summarizes the debate in an article titled “Copy Editing and Open Access Repositories (2011).” In his article, Davis considers two studies on the subject of open access with two different outcomes. One of the studies, conducted by Sandy Thatcher of Pennsylvania State University, shows that micro editing errors are “minor” but the macro editing errors of peer only reviewed research “have a way of being perpetuated in the scholarly record.”
In other words, when a prestigious researcher makes an editing error, any other person who cites that research will also be in error. The other study that Davis reviewed, conducted by Ed Wates and Bob Campbell, shows that there were no difference in editing errors between peer reviewed and professionally edited research; both have the same or close to the same margin of error. Only time will tell what the impact that the last ten years of open access has had and will have on the new generations of students, professors and researchers. Looking at the bigger picture, Davis says that whether or not peer review is better than professional copy editing or vice versa is not the main issue. The main issue of open access is trying to convince everyone that peer review and copy editing are both important to the scholarly process. He states, “The purpose of copy editing is not to detect serious flaws in theory, methodology, analysis or interpretation-that is the responsibility of peer review-but simply make a paper more consistent and readable.” Davis’ opinion seems to be in direct agreement with Brooks’ and Pinson’s six processes of macro editing. It is not the macro editor’s job to rewrite the writer’s story or research, but rather serve as a watchdog to ensure that the work is worthy, organized, accurate, objective. It is also the macro editor’s job to be certain that the audience will be fully educated on the topic of the work, and to serve as the audience’s “advocate.”
Sources Brooks, B. S. & Pinson, J. L. (2009). The Art of Editing in the Age of Convergence. Boston, MA: Pearson. “Budapest Open Access Initiative: Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative: setting the default to open (12 Sept. 2012). Retrieved from http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/openaccess/boai-10-recommendations. Davis, P. (1 June 2011). “Copy Editing and Open Access Repositories.” Retrieved http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2011/06/01/copyediting-and-open-access-repositories/.
Farkas, D. (1986). “How to Teach Technical Editing.” Washington, D.C.: Society for Technical Communication. Retrieved from http://reserves.library.okstate.edu/ENGL%20%20Society%20for%20Technical%20Communications%20publications/How%20to%20Teach%20 Technical%20Editing.pdf.