TABLE OF CONTENT
1- EDITING TEAM ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES
2- EDITING PROCESS
3- EDITING GUIDELINES
4- EDITORIAL INFORMATION TO THE WRITERS
5- DESCRIPTIONS OF DIFFERENT SUBMISSION CONTENT
Description of the basic ideas of the new proposal
This is a dual-model proposal, meaning that two radically different forms of organization will be introduced simultaneously to the Editing Team; The collective editing model, and the individual editing model. In short: Some editors will be organized into Editing Work Groups, and some editors will be organized as individual entities. Each of the two modes of organization will have its own rules of praxis. The Editors organized, will be free to resituate and reorganize themselves with the help of Lead Editors and Coordinators. The proposal includes the idea of having a group of Lead Editors, that are both skilled in editing, as well as skilled in organizationally. It is their job to (either) each lead a Editing Work Group (in the collective model), or (perhaps, not clear yet) to closely assist Individual Editors (individual model). The Coordinators, a new figure in our new magazine structure, will oversee the whole process, as well as give the final green light for articles that are ready. The Coordinators will also check emails, respond to emails (with few exceptions), update and organize the drive, communicate with other Teams, etc. The Coordinators will also be divided in terms of the nature of their tasks: The Chief Editor will mostly do (analytical) work in terms of the content of the articles and qualitative work in terms of organization. While the Assistant Editor, will mostly do logistical, quantitative work in terms of organization, infrastructure and archival-systemic work. These two may substitute each other in times of need. They are responsible for the content quality, logistic, and finally but most importantly for stability, development and organization of the Lead Editors (and thus also the Regular Editors). The Editing Proposal is thus a three-level division of labour type hierarchical structure, with collective and individual dimensions. The work-outcome relies heavily on the fact that all three layers are able to discuss and communicate within themselves(and across themselves) thus overcoming the current (none-)existing structure, where editors are atomized.
What is this document?
This document is a collection of all the past and current documentations and working papers related to the editing process in one way or another. They have all been modified according to the new proposal. Despite the fact that all the documents add, elaborate and expand further on the editing structure & process proposal, they all somehow constitute the body of ideas that is defined as the current editing structure & process proposal. None or little of the current material in this document contradicts (the core) of this proposal.
A separate document has been created, which include almost all the ideas that any of our members have been talking about over the past year (or further back). The Singular Ideas document can be expanded as well, and perhaps serve as a counter-measurement-meter to the existing proposal.
Who are the Authors of this proposal?
This proposal has mainly been curated and prepared by Adrian(Assistant Editor). The core ideas of the proposal stem from a considerable number of conversations and discussions with and between Thea, Shreya, Rahul, Ushosee,(Among others) in the spring of 2020. The ideas and plans were further developed and concretized in the summer of 2020, mostly with the following members: Miguel, Dogan, Rahul, Thea and Will. In the fall of 2020, mainly Rahul (Chief Editor) and Adrian worked on the basis ground for the theoretical formulations in these documents. While the practical footwork at this stage, has mostly been carried out by Adrian.
The mentioned people cannot however take all of the credit, it is no secret that reform of the editing process and structure has been discussed with different intensities for over a year, and among different Teams, many meetings, and informal conversations with many other members have taken place. The documents from the past few months (and years) that deal with reforming the editing structure have all (that I am aware of) been included, consulted and modified into this very long document.
How should this document be read and worked with?
It is no doubt that this current document cannot be taken in, implemented and approved in the current length and form. Each individual part of this document, includes numerous repetitions (but formulated in often different ways), and often new elements. One of our jobs in the Editing Reform Team is to remove these excesses, that are due to the re-actualizations of older documentations. We must gain a holistic overview, and understand the basis and core ideas and processes of the proposal, understand the alternatives and critiques. Evaluate them all together, and put them up against each other, while searching to reach a good outcome. Generally speaking, the overall plan is for us to understand, critique and improve the content of the document.
What are the requirements for the outcome?
It is important to note that this document’s aim is to be a foundational structural document, with very detailed descriptions, rules, and agreements on how the editing process and structure should look like. The aim is that future generations of coordinators and editors can take up the document and understand the complex processes, improving them from generation to generation. It is necessary with highly detailed descriptions, because of the fact that the structure and process will be a highly technical tool that determines the inner machinery of the magazine’s production of content. As the magazine grows more and more, the many components will become more complex, but they still all have to be in sync. Making a detailed agreement and descriptions of the structures and processes, will help the members of the magazine to get control and gain freedom over the production and work in the magazine.
The final document, that describes the process in detail, should not be mistaken for the chapters in the manual and guidelines for new and regular members of the magazine, these will need a more simplified language and pedagogical visualizations. This document, when done, should be (mainly) meant for those who will be in the Global Editorial Board (as Coordinators, but specially Editing Coordinators), as well Lead Editors, who all take advanced positions and need advanced understandings of the editing process, so that they can observe and be sure that the process is followed in tune, as well as to be able to learn the defects and shortcomings of the document, when put to practice, and thus be able to improve the document, in accordance with the basis of theory-praxis.
1- EDITING TEAM ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES
1.0 Basic Description of the Editing Team
The people in this section are the coordinators of the Editing Team. In this suggestion, the coordinators are divided into Chief Editor(s) and Assistant(s). Furthermore, in the Editing Team, there will be a large Lead Editing Group, who will organize the many regular editors into Editing Work Groups. The Chief Editor will not only help guide and coordinate all the Lead Editors in their work (example by dividing the work among them), but also be responsible for quality of the content published as well as time efficiency. The Chief Editor will be helped by one or two Assistants, as well as all of the Lead Editors. In case of any controversies, or difficult problems emerge, it is the job of the Chief Editor and Lead Editors to bring it up to discussion within the Lead Editing Group. This is only necessary if the Editing Work Group responsible for the article is not able to overcome the difficulty or controversy they have run into alone.
1.0.2. Positions within the Editing Coordination Section
- Chief Editor(s)
1.0.3. Positions within the Lead Editing Group
All of the above, including Lead Editors.
1.0.4. Positions within the Editing Team
All of the above, including Regular Editors, who are either Individual Editors or organized into Editing Work Groups, that are led by a Lead Editor each.
1.0.5. Work Hours
Chief Editor: 5-10 Hours per week
Assistant: 5-10 Hours per week
Lead Editor: 5-7 Hours per week
Regular Editor: 5 Hours per week or less (minimum 1-2 article per month)
1.1. Responsibilities of Editing Coordinators
1.1.1. Overall Responsibilities of Coordinators
- Organize and help the Editing Work Groups
- Draft and produce editing manual, guidelines, and toolbox for editors
- Train and guide all the editors to work in line of the structure and process
- Keep close track of the progress in editing, using the Progress Sheets as well as the Editing Sheet.
- To keep a track on the ongoing editing work in each Editing Work Groups
- Set deadlines for the editing of each article
- Keeping close track of the abilities and educational progression of all the editors
- Keeping close track of the availability of the editors within each Editing Work Groups.
- Train, educate and hold meetings with Regular Editors and new editors.
- Receive and evaluate new submissions, to see if they have potential to become content for our magazine.
- Assign new articles and content to one of the Editing Work Groups
- To induct new editors in the Editing Team
- Help Regular Editors advance to Lead Editor positions
- Share and rotate responsibility among members.
- To help implementation in reformation plans
- Involve the members of the Editing Work Team in discussion of the piece they are editing
1.1.2. Submission Related Tasks of Coordinators
(Chief Editor and Assistant Editor)
- Every submission is received through email.
- The new submission is screened, to see if it is suitable for publication and editing, and to evaluate the nature of it.
- The submission is added to the google drive folder: year/month/author
- The submission is registered in the Editing & Publishing Sheet (To follow its status)
- The submission is registered in the Progress Sheet (To follow its progress)
- The submission is shared with Lead Editors to discuss which Editing Work Group or Individual Editors can take it.
- The submission is assigned to a Editing Work Group or to a number of Individual Editors
1.1.3. Chief Editor’s main responsibilities
- To individually guarantee the quality of all the articles sent for publication
- By being the ultimate link, doing the ultimate check up
- By getting extensive support from all the Lead Editors
- To make the final approval for publication of an article
- To ensure the article lives up to all the requirements
- To have an overview of all the articles we receive
- To have an overview of all the articles being edited, and by which Work Groups
- To have an overview of all the articles approved for publication
- To constantly document and communicate these overviews
- To coordinate, and lead the Lead Editors
- To engage in editing discussions with the Lead Editors, in the Lead Editing Group
- In relation to difficult editorial problems that cannot immediately be solved by the individual Editing Work Groups
- To encourage and evaluate all the Editors, and Lead Editors (specially).
- To guide, educate and take care of Lead Editors.
- To ensure that all work is being conducted in a proper manner in all the Editing Work Groups
- In terms of treatment, inclusion, advancement, activity.
1.1.4. Assistant Editor’s main responsibilities
- To work closely with the Chief Editor, to keep track of the Lead Editors progress
- To assist the Chief Editor, Editing Team, and Lead Editing Group with communication, documentation etc.
- To provide, develop and maintain techniques for documentation of progress
- Editing Sheet
- Progress Sheet
- Help reply to all emails received at the submission address.
- Archive all content and articles received in the submission email, into the google drive.
- For content received with missing information (including biographical text, portrait photo, selected quotes, and promotion text draft), write back to the author.
- For (approved) content without illustration or photography,immediately notify the responsible person in the Artist Group (Content Creation Team)
- So that illustrations can ready before the Publishing & Social Media Team receives it
- Update the Editing Sheet (etc.) every time we receive articles.
- Notify the Lead Editing Group or Chief Editor every time we receive content
- Possibly delegate “first check up” tasks of new articles to Lead Editors (or Chief Editor)
- Send ahead edited (and approved) articles to the Publishing & Social Media Team
- Provide overall status update of the editing progress to the Publishing & Social Media Team every week
- In order for them to see which articles they might expect to be ready
1.2. Lead Editors Description
(Collectivized Lead Editors)
This basic membership category is reserved for those who are appointed to take leadership over a Editing Work Group. They need to have extensive knowledge of editing, as well as know article publication requirements very well. The Lead Editor also has to be able to work together with other Regular Editors within the Editing Work Group they are leading. Lead Editors are ultimately responsible to the Chief Editor, who will constantly evaluate them. Lead Editors also do regular (article) editing work, within their own Editing Work Group.
1.2.1. Lead Editor’s responsibilities
- Organize and lead the editors of the Editing Work Group assigned to you
1.3. Tasks of Individual Editors
None-Collectivized Editors/ Editors who are not organized in a Editing Work Group
- The Editors receive the article from the Coordinators (via email), they get access to the drive folder. They will get overall an assessment from the coordinators, as well as a deadline for the first round of editing.
- The Editors will work on the article on Google Drive. They will provide comments, suggestions and overall feedback on how to improve the article.
- Once the first round of editing is done, the editors each need to notify the coordinators (Assistant Editor) who will send it to the author.
- When the author is done working through the comments and altering the article, the article will be sent back to us.
- Once the article is back, the editors will be notified again and the second round of editing proceeds. The editors have to read the article again and edit, comment etc. if necessary.
- After all the comments and suggestions are resolved, and there are no more editing rounds, the editors will need to do a final proofread, to correct any spelling and grammatical errors: suggested tool is Grammarly.
- The editors and the writer will write a promotion text for social media together. The text should ideally be a short catchy text to make the readers want to know more about the article. It shouldn’t be long. This is a task of crucial importance for sharing online.
- When the article is completely done, the editors will notify the coordinators, who will do the final check. After that, the coordinators will send the article to the Publishing & Social Media Team.
1.4. Communication Responsibilities overview (Individual Model)
2- EDITING PROCESS
2.1. Description A: The Process of an Article
2.1.1. Editing Work Group Model
This is the version where the article is processed by a Editing Work Group (As opposed to Individual Editors, which is also going to be a possibility)
18.104.22.168 Simplified Version of Editing Work Group Model
22.214.171.124 Detailed Explanation of Steps
- Content Creation Team
- Content Creation Team
- Content Creation Team
- Content Creation Team
- Content Creation Team
- Content Creation Team
- The article is received.
- The article is received from the submission email. Either it be an article from an external writer, or an article produced by the Content Production team.
- The article is handled by the Assistant Editor. The Assistant Editor replies the sender and the Chief Editor is notified.
- The article is checked, identified and approved
- The Assistant Editor or the Chief Editor reads the article at this stage, they check if it is good enough to turn into a piece that our magazine can edit. An estimation is made based upon the editors capacities, the length and quality of the article, as well as the relevance.
- In case the article is declined, the author is notified by the Assistant Editor
- In case it is approved it is notified to the Lead Editing Team
- The article is uploaded
- If the article is approved, the article will be upload to the google drive.
- The location of the article will be under “Editing & Publishing Management/1-All submissions for editing/month/name of author”
- The uploaded article is shared with the Lead Editing Team
- The article is discussed in the Editing Work Groups
- The Chief editor takes the responsibility to identify a Editing Work Group that can take responsibility for the article to be published.
- Chief Editor contacts the Lead Editor of the relevant Editing Work Group, either in private or in the group chat of the Lead Editing Group.
- The Lead Editor then checks with his or her own Editing Work Group, to see if people feel they are ready and capable to do it, and if they can do it within the standard deadline (Publish before 14 days of submission max).
- The Lead Editor, will tell the Chief Editor and the whole Lead Editing Group, whether or not they can take the responsibility of the article, as soon as possible.
- Article delegated to one Editing Work Group
- Based on the previous discussions within the Editing Work Group, the Chief Editor manifests the responsibility of the Editing Work Group for this particular article, the Chief Editors (together with the estimations from the Lead Editor) sets them a deadline, and gives them concrete advice, guidance and encouragement.
- The Chief Editor also gives the contact details of the author to the Lead Editor. The Lead Editor is responsible for keeping in contact with the author through the official submission email.
- The Editing Work Group then starts editing the article.
- An Illustrator is assigned
- Meanwhile this happens, the Assistant Editor communicates with the Artist Group or Art Editor of the Content Creation Team. The assistant gives the responsibility of finding an appropriate illustration or photography to the Artist Group, and keeps in communication with them throughout the process.
- If necessary, contact between the responsible Editing Work Group and the Artist Group is established, in case any of them have certain wishes to the end product.
- In case the author has attached a picture, then the Artist Group will evaluate the work attached and see if it lives up to the aesthetic standards that the Artist Group has set up, they also check for copyright or ownership of those pictures.
- A project leader is assigned.
- In case that the Editing Work Group works with rotation principles or share the responsibility among the team members, the group together with the Lead Editor assigned a project leader for leading the editing of the article and coordinating the whole Editing Work Group.
- Editing Strategy and Editing Schedule are made
- The Project Leader or the Lead Editor, together with the whole Editing Work Group, map out an editing strategy and editing schedule or plan in order to fulfill the task and meet the deadline.
- They identify the amount of work the article needs in order to be published, and identify the article’s weaknesses.
- They divide the work and responsibilities, in such a way that everyone is involved together, and no one is either isolated with a task or has monopoly on a task.
- Time for discussions, encountering problems, delays and communication time with the author are all calculated into the Editing Strategy and Schedule.
- All of the Editing Work Group members are heard, and have a strong say in their work. Everyone feels as a part of a team, and enjoys their work.
- When the plan is made, it is communicated and finalized in such an efficient way that everyone in the group knows in detail what to do. Recommended to use graphics (a model should be made by the Coordinators, that the Editing Work Groups can take for inspiration)
- The strategy or plan is then communicated in overall terms to the Chief Editor and the Lead Editing Team.
- Article is Reviewed & commented by the editors
- According to the plan made and to the Editing Work Group editors, the article is then reviewed and edited by the editors.
- Either one by one or all together.
- After all the groups editors, or at least the agreed editors have edited and read the article, the article is discussed in the Editing Work Group, and a common agreement on what needs to be improved is made.
- Based upon the agreement, a collective statement is made if necessary, which will be shared with the author via email.
- The plan made earlier, is readjusted according to new realizations encountered during the first stage of editing.
- The Article is sent back to the Writer
- After the first round of editing, and when the article seems somehow ready to be sent back to the author, the Project Leader or Lead Editor decides together with the group to send it back.
- When sent to the author, the article will include either comments made to the authors, or suggestions about either content and language, or both.
- An overall statement is included in the letter to the author. The letter is either written in a collective, or the project leader or lead editor summarizes the main points of the discussion within the group. The language is encouraging and diplomatic.
- The lead editor and project leader will contact the assistant for help to send the letter and share the access to the article with the author.
- Article is under reconstruction
- After the article has been sent to the author, with a statement from the editors as well as individual comments from each editor in the text, and suggestions, the author will start to modify and change the article.
- During this process, the author is welcome to dispute or engage in discussions with any of the comments and suggestions.
- Article received from writer
- When the author is done correcting and reconstructing the article, the author will send the article back, or notify that the article is ready via the submission email.
- The Lead Editor or Project Leader will receive the article, respond to the author that it is received, and if necessary upload it back to the drive again. They will also notify the rest of the Editing Work Group, and include the message from the author, if any.
- Article is checked
- The editors involved in editing the article, check the new article to see which things have been approved and which things have not. They will check if the article now has become good enough.
- They will also evaluate the article again, and perhaps discover new problems, that either have just appeared, or went unnoticed.
- Another round of editing, comments and suggestions is initiated if necessary.
- Language and Grammar Editing
- When all of the content, titles, structure, length and arguments etc. of the article has been reached a satisfying level, the article is then scrutinized for language and grammar problems.
- Perhaps only a few editors would need to do this.
- This part also includes checking for typography errors, such as double space, quotations, referencing styles
- (Note, the article should also perhaps be fact-checked and tested for plagiarism at a very early stage, as well as fact checking of sources).
- At this stage we can also add a number of tags to be used on WordPress. Find out all of the relevant concepts, philosophers, locations, mentioned in the article and select those you find relevant to serve as tags. Also make up your own tags based on your interpretation of the article.
- Missing Metadata Obtained
- The Project Leader and the Lead Editor, will at this stage check if all the necessary materials to include for publishing are there.
- Is the illustration ready by now? If yes, then added to the google drive folder. If not, contact the Artist Editor.
- Is the small biographical text of the author ready? If yes, then add it to the google drive folder. If not, contact the author.
- Is the portrait photo of the author ready? If yes, then add it to the google drive folder, if no contact the author.
- Co-written promotion text draft
- At this stage, some or in some case all of the editors should work together with the author to write an accurate, small and intriguing text for use on social media to promote the article. It is important that this text is good. It only has to be a draft since the Publishing and Social Media team will work more on it.
- When done, the promotion text should be uploaded to the drive folder of the author
- Article Editing Done
- The Project Leader and the Lead Editor, do the final check, to see if the article lives up to all the requirements, that the article is well edited, has a good title, no errors, and has all the necessary metadata and information
- When the editing is done, the Lead Editor should acknowledge the editors for their good work, give them feedback to improve and encourage them to keep struggling for this important task. All of the editors should also deliver critique and discuss what they can do better, as well as any other
- When the article is completely done and reached this stage. The Lead Editors notify the Lead Editing Team and the Chief Editor, or the Assistant.
- Final Approval
- The Chief Editor will then read and check the article for the last time. It is the Chief Editors responsibility that the article is good enough for publication, and that all the requirements are fulfilled before it is sent to publication
- The article is sent to the Publishing & Social Media Team
- The assistant editor now sends the article to the Publishing and Social Media Team.
2.1.2. Individual Editors Model
2.2. Description B. Editing Process Streamlined Steps
List of tasks involved in the editing — publishing process. Generally can be categorized in 3 different kinds of work:
- editing (articles),
- coordinating (among editors),
- and communication (with writers and illustrators)
2.3. Description C. Editing Process and Practices
How this document should be used
- The steps, team structure, and process should be agreed by the Global Editorial Board and Editing Reform Team
- An additional graphical representation of the process can be created to help clarify the very wordy process.
- The documents will become an official handbook and process guide for all editors. It should be distributed to all editors and confirmed.
- There should be meetings where the process is officially introduced to the editors and receive feedback/questions from the editors.
editing team, editorial process and team structure
A. Preview phase on receiving submission @Editing Coordinators
- Send an automated acknowledgement to the writers saying that the article has been received.
- Screening BEFORE acceptance/rejection (1-2 days – by Chief Editor and Assistant Editor)
We check the submissions for:
- Language that promotes unreasonable hatred, violence or dehumanization.
- Content where language and ideas are too incoherent to proofread or edit.
- Factually incorrect or misleading content, or fake news
- Whether or not fitting the with the scope of Critical Edges
- Quality of submission: convincing narratives, credible references, logical arguments, critical engagement of the topic, etc.
- Informing decision: The communication shall be established with the writers at this stage. We send out the editing agreement, and explain to them our editing process (how many editors would be involved, mutually agreed deadlines and what shall the writers expect in the upcoming days and the requirement of editing form).
B. Assigning editors and editing phase @Editing Work Groups
- Once the editing agreement is back, a Google Docs can be created and a link should be sent to editors.
- Assigning editors: Individual Editors or Editing Work Group assigned
- Editors and Editing Work Groups can seek help from the Lead Editing Group and Chief Editor, in case they run into problems with the article or with the author.
- We invite the authors to work on the feedback. Lead Editor (Or Assistant Editor) shall talk to the writer about the deadlines they would like to choose to carry their work forward. Once the writers are done working on the feedback, it shall go back again to the Individual Editors or Editing Work Group to see if they find more issues, the Lead Editor or Assistant Editor shall inform the author and send more feedback.
- Guidelines for Editors
- Thorough proofreading for grammatical and typographical errors and proper formatting with numbered references is non-negotiable.
- Any disagreement with the author MUST be dealt with maintaining cordiality. If there are ideas you disagree with, discuss with an open mind. Seek references from the author to ascertain that their opinion is informed. If you are still not convinced, consult a Lead Editor.
- Disagreements with fellow editors are to be treated in the same manner.
- Do not change the article or the author’s style of writing. Respect the author’s agency to express. An argument/idea/concept that you disagree with still deserves space of expression as long as it has been expressed coherently, and respectfully.
- Only use Suggested Edits mode on Google Docs to edit and add comments. Here’s a useful link on how to use Suggested mode.
- Use the criticality checklist to guide the editing work
- Checklist for finishing the article. The following items must be included in order to complete editing.
- Proper and attractive title (and subtitle if needed), follow good guidance on what makes good headlines (including heading capitalization and title formation)
- Author’s full name and bio + photo
- Formatting references and citations: usual case is that all should be formatted as footnotes;
- In text photo: include photo credit + proper descriptive captions. Editors should encourage authors to provide suitable photos for their articles.
- Social media promotion text of article: it should be an appealing 30-50-words text. The text is used for social media promotion of the article.
C. Final review and PROOFREAD @Lead Editors and Coordinators
- Once the work is done and the editors are satisfied. The article shall go back to the Chief Editor, who shall review it to ensure overall quality, no errors, and the checklist of information is fulfilled. If the editors and reviewers are not satisfied, then further communication shall be established with the authors and rework on the issues.
The text here should be proofread by professionals, or by using online proofread tools such as Grammarly. No grammatical or spelling errors should appear after proofread is done.
D. Informing publishing team and into production phase @Coordinators
- In case everything works out the Assistant shall establish communication with the Publishing & Social Media Team and take the matter forward with writers and the production team.
3- EDITING GUIDELINES
3.1. Criticality Checklist
This checklist provides some pointers to help editors to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of an article’s ideas and content.
Checks description, analysis and interpretation that allow readers to assess the article’s value.
Not all of the questions or guidelines will be appropriate for every article. Add disclaimer to help editors trust their own instincts and use the guideline as suggestions..
Before You Read the Article
- What does the title lead you to expect about the article?
- Consider the title. Does it precisely state the subject of the article?
- Who wrote the article? What were/are their interests? (A sociological interpretation can be very different from an engineer’s outlook.)
Reading the Article: Points to Consider
- Who is the intended audience?
- Why is it relevant? Is it relevant for our magazine?
- What is the author’s purpose?
- To survey and summarize research on a topic?
- To present an argument that builds on past research?
- To refute conventional belief?
- Does the author define important terms?
- Are the author’s central arguments or conclusions clearly stated?
- Are they supported by evidence and analysis?
- Does the writer’s style suit the intended audience? Is the style stilted or unnecessarily complicated?
- Is this clearly written?
- Are the arguments backed up with fact; are the critique made around the ideas? Is the information in the article fact or opinion? (Facts can be verified, while opinions arise from interpretations of facts.)
- Are the sources reliable?
- If illustrations or charts are used, are they effective in presenting information?
- Do the authors frame/connect their points to large-scale issues/broader categories of ideas/theories? If such connections are not made clear, are there any potential connections to a large scale issue or issues (that are not stated by the author)? If so, consider suggestions that can be made to the author to clarify these connections.
- Does the article have a clear and logical structure? Is the conclusion(s) justified by the premises (examples and arguments) given?
- Does the information seem well-researched or supported?
Check for the following when revising:
- The effect of the author’s language. The appropriateness of the vocabulary and sentence structure.
- Whether the author accomplishes her/his objective. Does the author do what she/he has set out to do?
- Whether the article is well-structured, with logical support of the conclusions and clear language. (Complex language is okay, but make sure it serves a purpose.)
- Errors in quotations or in references.
- Grammar and punctuation errors.
3.2. Checklist of things that an article MUST have before publishing
- Proper and attractive title (and subtitle if needed), follow good guidance on what makes good headlines (including heading capitalization and title formation). Try to make an attractive title that hits on the key message of the article. Be careful not to make it too long or academic, but also be careful with too poetic and abstract titles. Be creative, use key-words and hot topics.
- Descriptive and appealing subtitle. This text will appear under the title, also when we share articles on social media or WhatsApp, etc. It is usually here the readers get a deeper idea of what the article is about, we should take advantage of this. The subtitle should be around 1-2 lines, descriptive and hit on key topics, keywords that the real title could not include.
- Author’s full name, biographical text and photo-portrait: Pictures must have good quality and be added to the folder in the drive. To avoid missing information we should put all the pictures in the drive. Pictures have to come in .jpg or .png file (separately).
- Promotion text of the article at the top of the text: it should be an appealing 30-50-words introduction. The text is used for social media promotion of the article.
- Keywords/hashtags that are relevant to the article/content itself, and also relevant to the broader conversations that are taking place in society. Ideal number for keywords would be 15+.
- In text photography or illustrations: include photo credit + proper descriptive captions. Some pictures may be chosen by the author to appear in the WordPress post within the article, but those too must be in the author’s folder, separated from the others used for social media purposes, in a specific folder. We should encourage authors to provide suitable photos or illustrations for their articles. No copyrighted material allowed. Make sure to get the owner’s permission, or find open-source material.
- Formatting references and citations into footnotes: Sources, materials, academic references should be formatted as footnotes; Encyclopedic words and names can have an in-text-link. References to articles or news that we want the reader to click into, can have in-text-link as well. But be aware not to include too many in-text-links in an article.
3.3. Checklist of things that an article MUST NOT have before publishing
- “Introduction” / “Conclusion” / “Abstract” / Methodology in-text-subtitles. None of these are welcome in our articles. The article is not an academic assignment for a teacher to read, it is an article to be read by an actual audience. No audience can tolerate such uninspiring titles. It is the job of us editors to either rename or change them.
- In-text Academic References (James, 2003: p43). Our articles are not academic articles for journals. Our audience come from different academic disciplines and sometimes none. This kind of referencing only makes sense within an academic discipline, field of study or paradigme: Where the reader knows or is supposed to know certain authors, books, articles, etc. For our magazine, these academic references need to be put in the bottom of the text as footnotes, this way we do not alienate the readers who come from different disciplines.
- Narrow technical or disciplinary terms, abbreviations without definition, encyclopedic references or explanations. We need to be writing to the common student reader, terms from advanced scientific disciplines such as sociology, psychology, development studies. Etc needs to be used in an appropriate way so that the reader can follow. If a new concept is introduced, the concept and its usefulness here needs to be explained. Philosophical concepts need references to encyclopedic work that describes it. Abbreviations for anything, whether it be local organizations and bodies, groups, phenomenon, all need to be defined (in brackets) in text when used for the first time, even if we assume we think the majority of the reader is familiar with the abbreviation, examples: NATO, LGBTQ, TUC, KOMINTERN, ANC, PCF, AISEL, MEGA, RUC, TISS, etc.
4- EDITORIAL INFORMATION TO THE WRITERS
4.1. Submission guideline
+Pitching an idea
Include: topic, interview, sources, why relevant, summary, length, why publish with us, etc… (can include the full draft if they have)
Please send us a pitch by filling out this form when/before you submit a piece of work.
HOW TO CRAFT A GOOD PITCH (by Pritha): – ask people to respond to the questions, could use a form
- An original idea/summarize your idea and what is original about it?.
- A clear explanation of why it is relevant at this particular moment in time: its peg.
- An outline of your proposed approach (who you’ll speak to for it, what supporting material you’ll be able to provide etc.).
- Briefly mentioning (if relevant) whether or not you have any specific expertise or experience/attribute/skill that makes you uniquely placed to work on the story you’re pitching.
- Why do you think Critical Edges would be a good publishing platform for it.
- A tentative deadline and word count.
- What keywords are associated with your idea and story?
A commissioning editor is inundated with emails on a daily basis, so you want to ensure yours is striking and to-the-point. This means a succinctly crafted note that: briefly introduces yourself (name, location,), and then outlines the story you’re proposing. Ensure that your pitch note explains (again, crisply) why this story is important, why is it timely or relevant, how it hasn’t been written about or approached in this manner before, what sources or references you intend to rely on for reporting/writing it, and what the reader of the publication could get out of it.
There is simply no substitute for a strong, well-fleshed out, original idea that meets the criteria of timeliness, relevance, rigor.
If you’re pitching to a publication you don’t usually read or follow, make sure to at least browse through a month or two’s archive of stories (if freely available/accessible) so you can ascertain that your story idea will be a good fit.
Once your first pitch is accepted, ensure your story is as flawless as possible.
Sometimes a good/solid idea is obfuscated with poor or rambling language, and depending on how much time the commissioning editor has on a given day, may or may not get the attention it merits. So make sure your language is as clear and concise as possible.
Preparing Your work:
When submitting your work (text/media), please make sure you include the following elements in your submission:
- A clear and attractive title for your work
- A short summary/abstract of your work
- Keywords / hashtags that we can use on social media
- A short introduction of yourself
- A photography of yourself (unless you don’t want to share your photo)
- Citation or reference if you are using sources
- If you have media files, please use the high resolution versions and clearly note the copyright
We prefer you to use these formats: MS Word (.doc or .docx) or Open Document (.odt) format. Google Docs is also acceptable. Prefered font and size is Times New Roman 11pt.
If you include pictures, they should be sent to us as separate files (JPG, png) to maintain high quality. Don’t just insert photos in a document. Please specify the author/copyright of the image to avoid infringement.
Send Us Your Work
- Via. e-mail to email@example.com
- Use “month submission + title + name” as the subject in the email
- Tell us when you want to publish
Updated 2022 November
4.2. Editing Agreement sent to writers
- We will check that your submission is in alignment with our magazine’s vision
- We make sure that your submission is original, well referenced, and not plagiarized
- We might substantiate your article with improvements of grammar, prose, argument, clarity, and coherence
- We strive to keep your ideas and voice intact and will never impose our notions to your work
- Our editors will be open and share their opinions and viewpoints on the article, which the editor is free to listen to.
- The editing and communication process should ideally be done within 7 days.
- The article should ideally be published within 14 days
NOTE: It is the writer’s responsibility to respond to the editor’s email and revisions. Please note that, if the editor does not receive any kind of response from the writer, the work will not be published.
- Your submission will be edited by a number of editors and will be done via Google Docs.
- Editings will appear as suggestions on your original work, and the edited document will be sent back to you.
- The Editors will also give both general comments to the article, with their impressions, disagreements and suggestions for the article and the author, as well as specific comments to certain areas of the article.
- You can choose to accept, comment, or communicate certain changes with your editor on Google Docs.
- In case of multiple authors, it shall be the responsibility of the primary author (or author who receives the e-mail) to communicate the changes and suggestions to the other authors.
- Once articles are reworked and finalized by BOTH the author(s) + editors, the article will be published.
I/We declare that the paper is original and that I am/we are the original authors, except for material that is clearly cited and referred to as its original source, with permission from the copyright owner where required. I/We authorise the editors to review the manuscript. I/We agree that the comments received would be reworked accordingly within the accepted time frame.
5- DESCRIPTIONS OF DIFFERENT SUBMISSION CONTENT
5.1. Categories of submission and publishing
5.2. Publishing format, schedule & plans
Written and finalized in January 2021 by Editors: Pritha, Naveen, Rahul, Chris, Adrian and Thea. With the help of Shreya.
0 comments on “Editing Structure, Process and Guidelines”