Creative Commons license icon

Reply to comment

New features are often disruptive, and should be deployed with care. Sometimes a little disruption is good, though.

As an editor, I try to provide a consistent level of quality while preserving each contributor's unique tone (at least when it comes to opinion-based pieces). Basically, it's my job to make everyone else look good, without changing the essence of what they're saying. Because we accept submissions from anyone, this often entails a lot of work. I like to think the end result is valuable; certainly, other sites seem keen to syndicate it.

Almost all content benefits from having more than one set of eyes on it before publication. Some submissions have flaws in grammar, spelling or punctuation; others are vague, factually deficient, or present opinions as facts. Often pieces lack links and embedded images, or a compelling title. In a few cases, I will suggest substantial changes to clarify an argument, or carefully rewrite it myself.

Only the contributor knows what changes have been made. In general, they seem pleased; I get very few complaints.

I can think of only a handful of rejections, and in most of those it was for issues unrelated to quality, such as inappropriate venue.

Reply

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.
Leave empty.