So, you want to edit a book? Or to participate in an edited collection? Read here first!

I have discussed here and here my analysis of authors as belonging to a continuum of which the two extremes are the category of "artists" (they want to impress with a great narrative, and see their writings as works of art) and that of "communicators" (they want to engage in discussion, and see their writings as open to modifications).

Now, I would like to add a few new insights derived from my recent work as editor (I am constantly editing or co-editing books ---currently I have four co-editorships going on):

• While reading the drafts sent to me, I invariably add post-its or the like with questions such as "What do you mean by that?" or "Do you mean to say that x?" More often than one would expect, I get an answer from the author in the same post-it and directed to me alone. However, as an author I think you should focus on the fact that hardly anyone will read your article as carefully as the book editor. Thus, if she or he does not understand something, this means that you have not been clear enough and that you have to clarify.




• Since I am a communicator much more than an artist, and a syntetic much more than an analytic person, I am not particularly annoyed by typos, imprecise bibliographies and the like. Nonetheless, after I have commented upon the first draft and told the author about such problems, I expect them to take care of these flaws. They can decide to either spend time (e.g., by looking carefully through their article, checking grammars and dictionaries and the like) or money (e.g., by paying an English native speaker and/or a proofreader) on their articles, but I think it would be unfair from them to expect me to do it (in case you are wondering: I regularly have my articles checked by an English proofreader).

Last, a warning (in case you want to work with engaged editors like me):

• I find collections with no specific purpose useless and slightly annoying (because one never knows what one will find in them) and I take my job as editor extremely seriously. Thus, I expect the authors and co-editors working with me to work on shared enterprise (and not just to deliver their article as if it was a parcel). If you are not ready to re-think your article along with your editor, send it to a journal and not to an edited collection. But, let me add that almost all the authors who have worked with me in the past have hated me (like any other editor, I suppose) during the process and thanked me a lot afterwards, since articles are incredibly improved while going through this process.

What are your insights as editor and author?

If you are editing a book, you might also be interested in this post (on what one can delegate while editing a book or article, sorry for some Indian-specific items).
Cross-posted, with minor modifications, on my personal blog.

Comments

[someone]

Elisa,
These comments are very useful. From my experience they apply not only to people submitting papers to edited volumes, but to journal contributions as well.
If one referee (or editor) finds something opaque then surely other readers are apt to find it opaque. And referees' comments can make significant improvements to a manuscript. I can think of only a few cases from my experience where referees' suggestions made things worse. Referees (and editors) are our friends. :)

[Marcus Arvan]

Thanks for sharing your experience, Elisa. I also (mostly) agree with "someone". Although it can be tempting to blame referees for "not getting" your paper--and of course there are some who read uncharitably--in my experience there is a ton that you, as an author, can do to ensure that people *don't* read uncharitably. And I've found that referee comments can be incredibly helpful in this regard. If one referee reads your paper in a particular way, others are likely to do the same as well. So, even if you think the reading is uncharitable, the right thing to do is not chalk up the rejection to an uncharitable reviewer, but instead take pains to prevent the same kind of reaction in future drafts.

[Elisa Freschi]

Thank you, someone and Marcus. I agree with you, I would only add that an editor is even more on your side than a peer-reviewer (after all, there will be the editor's name on the book's cover, so that she is really interested in the articles' quality!).