Now that I am making an effort to update this blog on a semi-regular basis, I’d like to post more frequently about scientific writing, my work as a scientific editor, and other grammatical nerdiness.
To start, I must first note that all work-related posts come with the following disclaimer: my company’s clients and the client’s research are confidential, so identifying details are changed accordingly.
In today’s post, I will write a little bit about my job and what it entails, as well as discuss a few grammar points — because my days are consumed by grammar points and I feel compelled to share!
Native Speaker vs. Professional Editor
For many jobs in Japan, a pulse and native English ability are the key prerequisites. For my job as a scientific editor, naturally, a science background is also required.
When I applied for my job, I satisfied the above-mentioned criteria, but had no experience as an editor. So, my first six months on the job included rather rigorous training: my boss looked over every one of my jobs and provided me with extremely thorough feedback. Any native speaker checking a document is able to check for grammatical errors such as subject-verb agreement and spelling, but a critical element that separates native speakers from professional editors is consistency.
A prototypical example is the serial comma, which is generally used in American English but often omitted in British English and technical writing: both “A, B, and C” and “A, B and C” are grammatically correct. One of the most difficult — and for lack of a better word, unnatural — parts of my job is having to recognize that “A, B, and C” is used on page 3, while “A, B and C” is used on page 17. A similar example is checking the citation of references, for example, having to notice that on page 5, [1] the reference is given after the comma, but on page 14 [2], the reference is given before the comma. One last example is ensuring the consistent use of terminology. If an author primarily uses the phrase “electronic device” and only once uses “electrical device”, the terms must be revised for consistency.
Because individually these examples are not strictly incorrect, they would most likely escape the notice of a non-professional native speaker; in contrast, a professional editor with a well-developed sense of anal retentiveness can be expected to make the necessary revisions.
Redundant Redundancy Repeating Unnecessary Words That Are Not Needed
One of the more amusing parts of my job is spotting grammatically correct yet redundant phrasing that can be written more concisely.
…in the next fifty years of this century… (in the next fifty years)
…the laser beam perpendicular to the normal of the surface… (the laser beam parallel to the surface)
…temperature increases linearly with a constant slope… (temperature increases linearly)
One of my New Favorite Words
Thereby – adv., by that means
Before becoming an editor, I never once used the word thereby, but it really is useful for cutting out superfluous words and writing in a clear, direct style.
We dissected the frog, and by do so, were able to examine its internal organs.
That sentence isn’t bad, but toss in a little thereby and bam!
We dissected the frog and thereby were able to examine its internal organs.
How was that? いかがでしたか？
sneaky
