Kirsten replied: " To clarify, I always send authors the edited article with ALL changes tracked. I suggest they put my edits into their own words. If they disagree with my edits, I am willing to listen to their reasoning and usually we can find a solution that pleases both writer and editor. Readers expect editing for clarity, readability and accuracy in content and that is what my editorial changes strive to achieve."The role of an Editor is in part to Edit.  Don't think that doesn't happen in Peer-Reviewed papers.  Kirsten's response is exactly what I expect from a conscientious and engaged editor.Having published in everything from Science to Bee Culture, having dealt with reporters from the local media to the Wall Street Journal and API, I've had lots of experience with Editors.The Editor that I don't want, as well as the journals, magazines, newspapers and other media that I don't respect, are those that think fact checking simply means spelling my last name correctly (there are no a's in Bromenshenk) and those that refuse to let me even see a copy of the article before they publish.  Having been burned more than once - I find that unacceptable.  This issue becomes even more important when dealing with reporters.  At a National Meeting of Tech Science Writers some years ago, the editors, writers, and reporters agreed that their 'Editors' had a policy that they (the writers) should not provide a pre-publication copy of the final article for review.  Only one reporter indicated that he actually provided a pre-copy, and he acknowledged that was going against policy.  And these were the Science Tech Writers for prestigious newspapers, magazines, and journals like Scientific American.  The Editor's concern seemed to be that they didn't want the information source changing the thrust of an article.  From my perspective, that's a specious argument.  I know that I have no real control.  Those reporters that I will talk to are those that let me see the final article and point out errors.  I realize that I have no real control over the final publication, but at least I can see that it's accurate. My criteria, whether an article that I've submitted to a peer-reviewed journal or an interview by the National Enquirer - I refuse to deal with editors who don't seek the truth.  I want to see the article before it goes to press - to ensure accuracy.   But that doesn't mean that I'm not open to critique, nor unwilling to change an article to improve readability, etc.  If it gets down to crucial issues, like data interpretation, I'm not infallible.   I welcome a critique.  but as the investigator, I do have final say in how I interpret the data.  But I may need to acknowledge alternative interpretations.  That's fair.Peer-review does not mean no editing - in fact those are the most highly edited of all papers.  Each peer reviewer, if they are doing their job, will challenge any weak or unsubstantiated statement, will line edit the manuscript, and will check references, etc.  That's why most manuscripts submitted for per review are required to have line numbers.   When the reviewers have submitted their comments, and the editor forwards to the lead author, the submitter then has the first obligation to change, amend, improve, respond.   The peer-review form provided to the reviewers usually asks for one of three recommendations:  Publish, Publish with Minor Changes, Reject.  Some add, Publish  with Major Changes.   In the latter case, the Editor may send out to more reviewers, if the initial reviews were split.  Regardless, the Editor makes the  final decision regarding whether the author(s) have made the required and recommended changes.  The author(s) may choose to argue, negotiate - but the final article doesn't go to press until the Editor approves it.And if you really want to see an edit, try preparing a Good Laboratory Practices audited report for submission to EPA.  The GLP auditors are fierce.My hat's off to Kirsten - I expect nothing less of a good editor.  Hers is a reasonable approach.  If I submit an article to ABJ, and we find ourselves in substantial disagreement, I always have the option of with-drawing the article and publishing elsewhere.Finally, as far as the disclaimer goes - I've done years of work with EPA.  In EPA documents, there's always  a Disclaimer.  Most of the time, the Disclaimer is similar to the one attached to Randy's article.  That's just the standard EPA disclaimer - it's been around for decades.   I have a couple of EPA published reports that basically contain a non-disclaimer.  In those cases, the report has had EPA input and authors, or EPA contracted authors, and the final report reflects EPA's point of view.  For example, some of our work was included in an EPA set of recommended protocols for assessments of hazards and EPA Hazardous Waste sites.  In those documents, I saw what amounts to a non-disclaimer.  None of this addresses the current content of ABJ.  If you don't like it, let them know.  But don't beat up on an editor for doing the job of an editor.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html