The editor is not your enemy
by Kristiane Bernhard-Novotny
Receiving an edited manuscript can be an uncomfortable experience. An introduction has been rewritten, paragraphs have been moved, and a carefully chosen anecdote has disappeared. Comments question explanations that seemed perfectly clear when they were written.
It can feel as though the editor is working against the author.
Yet the editor and author are working towards a common objective: an article that captures the reader's interest, communicates the author's ideas and makes a complex subject enjoyable to read. How best to achieve this may be less obvious.
The author knows the subject, the reasoning behind their work and the details that distinguish it from other research. The editor brings another perspective, considering how the intended readership will encounter and understand that information.
A detail that seems essential to the author may interrupt the argument. An anecdote familiar to colleagues may require so much background that it distracts from the main subject. Conversely, something the author mentions almost in passing may provide an interesting entry point for the reader.
These differences are not necessarily disagreements about the subject itself. They often concern how best to present it.
An editor may suggest reorganising an explanation, replacing an example or removing a paragraph. But proposing a change is only part of the work. The editor also needs to explain why it might improve the article: how it strengthens the argument, maintains the focus or helps the reader recognise the significance of the work.
The author's response is equally important. What initially appeared to be an unnecessary detail may turn out to be central to the reasoning. An objection to a suggested change may reveal that the editor has overlooked something important. Such discussions can lead to a better solution than either version initially proposed.
This is where editorial guidance becomes a collaborative process. The editor helps the author navigate the decisions involved in presenting their work, while the author ensures that the resulting article remains faithful to its subject. Both contribute to finding a structure, emphasis and language that serve the intended readership.
By the time the article is published, the questions, discussions and revisions are no longer visible. What remains is a text that reflects the author's intellectual contribution and gives the reader a reason to become interested in it.
An edited manuscript may initially look like a collection of objections. But those suggestions are not necessarily a rejection of the author's work. They are an invitation to examine how best to communicate it.
Related posts:
