TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L Archives

Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2008-02 > 1202845988


From: "Christy Fillerup" <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] "Genealogy in the Info Age" NGSQ Article
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:53:08 -0700
References: <BAY132-W6A5D332879BE716751A8A92280@phx.gbl><27329362.4671202571603612.JavaMail.root@mbs4.homesteadmail.com><007701c86b51$8a3744a0$6801a8c0@MAMA><DA06AAEB0EB144968A159D5055FE383F@ESMPC><000601c86ba7$69c4e140$6801a8c0@MAMA><09E8BB677F1B4889BBCBF8C8A21278CA@ESMPC><00e501c86cbb$0d494950$6801a8c0@MAMA><9FF26A9E00C94334B7C272B8618D1ACA@ESMPC><000001c86d38$75bebdd0$6801a8c0@MAMA><0EECF013E2814E318CEFC73A019013DE@ESMPC><003c01c86d97$d0ca3060$0201a8c0@d3000><6BCD803EE1054034863CDC86B8F8F924@ESMPC><929393D91FA8463D8F7912F9242D7B01@ChristyPC><7379C6E6ABC846D9BCE5FB1028ACABB4@ESMPC>
In-Reply-To: <7379C6E6ABC846D9BCE5FB1028ACABB4@ESMPC>


All very good points we hadn't considered. Perhaps it is a process best
viewed from the inside. There's only so much you can learn from others
experiences before you take the plunge and submit an article for yourself.
Any advice you can give on writing a good scholarly article would be much
appreciated, however. That being said, we have been taking up an awful lot
of your time of late, and we understand that you have a business to run as
well.

Thank you for all of your insight and help,
Christy Fillerup

----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: [TGF] "Genealogy in the Info Age" NGSQ Article


> Christy wrote:
>>Lee, Harold, and I were chatting
>> last night in preparation for our article discussions next week. We
>> discussed briefly the fact that all of the articles we are going to read
>> were once much longer, and had undergone the editing process. We
>> discussed
>> the possibility of comparing and contrasting articles in their original
>> form
>> to the versions which were eventually published. I'm not sure what the
>> legalities involved in this would be from the viewpoint of the publishing
>> bodies, but would appreciate your thoughts on an excercise such as this.
>
> Christy, I think the problem would not be one of legalities but
> practicality. Most people think of the publication process as
>
> (a) the author writes what they want to say, and
> (b) the editor sends it to press;
>
> or
> (c) the author writes what they want to say, and
> (d) the editor hacks out half of it, changes up the other half, and sends
> it
> to press.
>
> In reality, at good journals and presses, getting the article from its
> original version to its final version is a series of processes that
> involve
> numerous rewrites. Most good authors will have, themselves, rewritten the
> paper many times before they submit it. Then peer reviewers weigh in. Not
> only do they point out problems, if these exist, but offer suggestions for
> areas to cut or areas to develop to create a paper that is most useful for
> its intended audience. Then authors rewrite. Then editors make a critical
> analysis and ask many more questions that may result in another rewrite by
> the author. (Many articles actually *grow* at this stage, rather than
> being
> cut.) Then editors--using their "outside eye" or "readers' eye" will
> re-evaluate, snip, prune, and graft (with the author's participation) to
> shape an article into the form that their editorial experience leads them
> to
> feel is the best for their particular audience.
>
> Bottom line: While comparing "what an author originally wrote" to the
> "final
> version" sounds like a straight-forward process, it definitely isn't. Some
> BCG judges occasionally ask the trustees to make this mandatory for
> applicants who submit published articles. The problem is the difficulty of
> defining what would be the author's "original" work amid all their drafts.
> Even when the author felt s/he could do that, they are often unable to
> find
> that particular draft among their many files that they have digitally
> revised and overwritten.
>
> Elizabeth
> (Who's speaking from under both a writer's and an editor's hat)
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word
> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the
> message

This thread: