Document Actions
Authors’ Review of Edited Proofs
June 21 to June 26, 2006
Dear Colleagues,
My recent letter to the editor of Nature has been published in the recent issue of Nature "Education and training put Iran ahead of richer states" (Nature 441,932;2006). I have copied and pasted the text of the galley proof approved by the authors and the one published by the journal. Please read the two texts carefully. As you will kindly see, the only word dropped by the editor is "Persian"! We have used the term "Persian Gulf" to refer to the body of water in the south of Iran that of course has had the same name for about 2500 years.
Since the time I was a student in medical school, they told us "Editor is the one you can trust"!
I really do not get it! The published letter does not match the galley proof that I have signed for publication. This cannot be explained by dropping a word due to the word limit as there is a lot of space in the published letter. Besides, the editor is not entitled to change the content without authors' consent.
I am not yet convinced about the reason for dropping this specific word. I am about to file a complaint against Nature.
Please advise.
Mohammad Reza Mohebbi
THE APPROVED GALLEY PROOF:
Education and training put Iran ahead of richer states
SIR - We read with interest your News report "Arab state pours oil profits into science" (Nature 441,132-133;2006). Other countries in the Persian Gulf have also tried to spend oil money on setting [ok?] branches of western universities, which is of arguable value when the infrastructure and the basic prerequisites of scientific research do not exist. Educating and training the personnel capable of doing research, as you describe in Qatar, is more important than spending on research and buying sophisticated equipment. Focusing on research and inviting scientists from overseas may lead to some short-term results, but it does not guarantee sustainable development without a solid, internal educational base. Iran is a good example of a country that has made considerable advances, through focusing on the education and training [Authors, correct?]. Despite sanctions in almost all aspects of research during the past 27 years, Persian scientists have been producing cutting-edge science. Their publication rate in international journals has quadrupled during the past decade. Although it is still low compared with the developed countries, this puts Iran in the first rank of Islamic countries. Considering the country's poor political relationship with the west and its brain-drain, Iran's scientific community remains productive, even while economic sanctions make it hard for universities to purchase equipment or send people to the United States to attend scientific meetings.
THE PUBLISHED LETTER:
Education and training put Iran ahead of richer states
SIR - We read with interest your News report "Arab state pours oil profits into science" (Nature 441,132-133;2006). Other countries in the Gulf have also tried to spend
oil money on setting up branches of Western universities, which is of arguable value when the infrastructure and the basic prerequisites of scientific research do not exist. Educating and training the personnel capable of doing research, as you describe in Qatar, is more important than spending on research and buying sophisticated equipment. Focusing on research and inviting scientists from overseas may lead to some short-term results, but it does not guarantee sustainable development without a solid, internal educational base. Iran is a good example of a country that has made considerable advances through focusing on education and training. Despite sanctions in almost all aspects of research during the past 27 years, Persian scientists have been producing cutting-edge science. Their publication rate in international journals has quadrupled during the past decade. Although it is still low compared with the developed countries, this puts Iran in the first rank of Islamic countries. Considering the country's brain drain and its poor political relationship with the West, Iran's scientific community remains productive, even while economic sanctions make it hard for universities to purchase equipment or send people to the United States to attend scientific meetings.
Could this be a typist error? “The nations in the gulf” is incorrect English; and if the magazine did not want to get involved in the controversy as to Persian versus Arabian Gulf they should either use both names or refer to international standards, which have been decided on by international committees
Yosef Leibman
Founding Editor, Israeli Journal of Emergency Medicine
This can not be a typo! The deleted word is not a preposition like "at, by, with, ...".
Mohammad Reza Mohebbi
Dear Dr Mohebbi,
Editors based outside Iran often refer to The Persian Gulf as "The Gulf", as this is how it is referred to in our countries. I would personally never say "The Persian Gulf" as this is uncommon within the UK. As copy editors are trained to excise extraneous words, and print journals are pressed for space, "Persian" may have seemed unnecessary to the copy editor at the last minute. I am sure that no offence was intended, but Western editors need to remember the cultural sensitivities surrounding certain geographical terms in future. The New Internationalist is a paragon of virtue in this regard, for example referring to New Zealand as Aotearoa/New Zealand.
An article in the Guardian this month highlights the same happening with other publications.
Matt
Matt Hodgkinson-Barrett
Senior Editor, BMC-series Journals
Iran Bans the Economist Over Gulf Map
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran has banned The Economist magazine for describing the Persian Gulf as merely "the Gulf'' in a map published in the latest edition, state television reported Wednesday.
It is the second time in two years that Iran has banned such an international publication for failing to use the term "Persian Gulf'' in a map. In 2004, it banned the National Geographic atlas when a new edition appeared with the term "Arabian Gulf'' in parentheses beside the more commonly used Persian Gulf.
Dear all,
I had responded only to Dr Mohebbi about the issue that he raised, and later to Dr Leibman who also made a comment. Dr Mohebbi then suggested that I should have directed my two cents worth to the list, so here it goes.
Fernando
Alvarez
Associate
Editor, Revista Biomedica
Dear Mohammad,
I fully agree with the point you make. I don't see why the Persian Gulf should be referred to simply as "the Gulf". There are many other geographical misunderstandings that the Americans and Europeans have popularized. For example, the people from the U.S. refer to their country as "America" and, hence, they are "Americans"; however, America is the name for the whole continent, from Alaska and Canada in the north, all the way down to Argentina and Chile in the south, and including all of the Latin American and Caribbean countries. Thus, all of us inhabitants of America are Americans.
Besides, you are right in objecting to the change that the editor made without your consent. The apparently minor change is not negligible.
Fernando Alvarez
Dear Mr Hodgkinson-Barrett,
I doubt it is a simple change!! by the copy editor. First of all, as the author of the letter, I believe that the journal has misused my signature. I signed the galley proof, and they changed it after I signed it and published it without my consent as the author.
Secondly, a simple search in the previous issues of Nature as well as many other journals in UK, will show you that the name "Persian Gulf" has been used several times before. So, I don't agree with you saying "It's the way it is referred to it in our countries.”!
As regards the evidence for the name that has been there for about three millennia, you can find lots of historical maps in different languages (Persian, English, Arabic, and Latin) in museums around the world as your British Museum showing the name of "Persian Gulf" as “Persian Gulf,” “Golfo Persico,” “Mar de Persia,” “Bahre Fars,” and “Khalije Pars”.
In the end, I would like to reiterate that as the author of the letter, I do not agree with the published letter that has my name on it. I HAVE SIGNED A DIFFERENT LETTER!
I hope that Nature has a valid explanation for the big mistake.
Mohammad Reza Mohebbi
Surely the important question here is not WHAT was changed, but WHEN it was changed (ie, after the author had approved the galleys). If journals think they have the right to edit/shorten letters AFTER the author has signed the proofs, this should surely be made clear to authors. I realise that letters are often squeezed into an issue at a late stage, so I'd be interested if other journals consider this reasonable practice and, if so, whether they would ever alter other types of papers AFTER proofs have been approved/corrected.
However, I suggest that WAME is not the correct place to debate the often sensitive topic of nomenclature, but it is a good forum for discussing journals' editorial practice.
Liz Wager
I think is it right to ask the journal why the change was made after the corrected galley was delivered. All journals, regardless of whether their impact and resources are large or small, should treat authors fairly and with transparency. If the word was deleted by mistake (or even intentionally) by an employee of the journal, there should be no problem publishing a corrigendum (or clarification).
In my limited experience, I have found the attitude of the staff responsible for the Correspondence section can be not particularly flexible and the behavior not as transparent as one would wish.
A few years ago I and others complained to this journal about a letter in the Correspondence section that contained an unfounded accusation of scientific misconduct, and a few rather easy-to-spot misinterpretations of the retracted article (which had not been published in Nature) the letter was criticizing. One of the authors of the letter was a Big Name—too important to be ignored, I guess.
The author, whose retracted paper the Big Name criticized, submitted a rebuttal to Nature, but they made him shorten it until it was shorter than the damaging letter they had published previously—and they delayed publication for several months. So by the time the author’s refutation was printed, everybody had forgotten about the problem, and its impact on readers was probably very weak. I protested to Nature about this and so did other people because of the unfair and very serious implications of the letter by Big Name, but the decisions had been made and the deeds had been done, and nothing was done by way of redress. (Unfortunately, I can't make the names public because this information is based on private correspondence.)
I hope we'll hear about the outcome of Dr Mohebbi's experience on the WAME list.
Karen Shashok
Politically and religiously inspired squabbles and complaints are a nuisance and probably an important reason for editors leaving WAME.
We should keep these issues out of WAME.
Josef
Milerad
Scientific-Editor-in–Chief,
Journal of the Swedish Medical
Association
I vehemently disagree with Dr Milerad. The main issue here is changing approved galleys. It is tampering and has no place in a respectable journal. Furthermore, another issue is respecting sensitivities by abiding to international consensus.
Principles are principles, and any intellectually honest person must worry about this journal's intent.
Yosef Leibman
Founding Editor, Israeli Journal of EM
I wholeheartedly endorse the remarks of Dr Leibman. The problem mentioned is exactly an issue of journalism and the way an editor should act. No matter what the changes, can a journal editor change a manuscript after the author signs the galley? If yes, to what extent? Is it necessary to show the final version of the manuscript, before publication, to the author and ask his/her signature again?
F. Habibzadeh
Is this not akin to splitting hairs? If someone says to me 'the Gulf', I immediately think of the Persian Gulf, and I expect that so many Europeans/North Americans do the same. I doubt if there was any malice in the act of deleting a single word (an element of ignorance maybe, but I doubt malice).
On the other hand, changes should not be made in the fashion you describe. So, write a letter of complaint, and then let it go. Mistakes happen, apologies should be made, but life is too short for lengthy discussions about these things.
This is one of the several recent discussions that would
convince me to leave the WAME listserve.
Moira Vekony
I agree wholeheartedly.
The matter should have been resolved in private correspondence between author and editor and only brought to general attention if no satisfactory explanation or resolution could be reached.
I would have thought there were more important issues for us to be discussing.
David Ames
Int Psychogeriatrics
I agree as well. Approved galley or no, before making inflamed assumptions, would it not be prudent to step back and at least consider that this might have been an honest error or oversight? First ask for an explanation! This usage is widely understood without question. I understand the author’s concern, but for him and others to immediately assume this was intentional is premature and serves no one.
I can’t understand why this would be broadcast to the listserve. I’ll likely soon sign off for the reasons others have cited.
Pat Curry
I agree with all of you that WAME is not a suitable forum to talk on issues other than medical journalism. But this case has turned a wheel in my mind; let's forget this specific case and discuss the problem I mentioned earlier from a purely journalistic point of view. I know many journals in developing countries that sometimes change accepted manuscripts even after the author proof.
1) Can the editor of a journal make changes (even minute ones) intentionally (not erroneously) after the author(s) signed the galley proof? Is it professionally acceptable?
2) If yes, to what extent can we change the manuscript without showing it to the author(s) before publication?
3) Isn't it necessary to ask the authors anyway, to prove the galley again?
I hope you will find these questions suitable for discussion
on the listserve.
Farrokh Habibzadeh
I read with interest the comment of Dr. Mohebbi. I would not like to comment to call the area as Gulf or Persian Gulf; however, as a science community and looking after purely scientific journals, we should do our best to avoid political conflicts and concentrate on our fields.
M Almoamary
Annals of Thoracic
Medicine
yosef leibman <jbleibmd@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
Could this be a typist error? “The nations in the gulf” is incorrect English; and if the magazine did not want to get involved in the controversy as to Persian versus Arabian Gulf they should either use both names or refer to international standards, which have been decided on by international committees.
Yosef Leibman
Founding Editor, Israeli
Journal of Emergency Medicine
Dear Colleagues,
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I perceived WAME as being a forum for dealing with any concern regarding publishing. I believe, therefore, that even a complaint such as this Gulf issue deserves mention—the writer was not complaining in my opinion but, rather, asking advice.
My journal is not a big one, and I think that as important as the larger issues are, I also look at WAME as a resource. This is a place where big boys such as the BMJ and JAMA can trade ideas and concepts—as well as provide consultation to smaller countries.
I also believe that ethical concerns and political sensitivities are part of our jobs and daily lives. Whether or not Gulf is a political issue, in the eyes of the writer it is no less important than CMAJ politics or ghost writing and deserves the proper respect.
In conclusion, I am sick of editors who are so myopic that they threaten this treasured forum with their withdrawal because they find a discussion not worthy of their attention.
Remember the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, “It is better to light one candle than curse the darkness.”
Yosef Leibman
Founding Editor, IJEM
So far, the discussion of whether authors get final proof approval seems to assume that the proofs sent to authors are the last ones before printing.
It’s not my experience that that’s the case. Moreover, in 30 years of helping journals, I’ve seen that there are many permutations as to number of proofing cycles and the ordering of which proofs are seen by whom. The options are sometimes dictated by budget or just by a journal’s own tradition. Processes are often negotiable, but in no instance have I seen authors given final approval rights, though their wishes are highly respected.
Here are permutations used at two journals published outside an English-language setting. List participants might want to consider their merits or suggest changes. The author does not see the final proofs in either one!
1) In one English-language journal I now co-copyedit, before I joined, only one set of proofs was issued—sent to the editor, the copy editor, and the author all at once! The pagemaker was the one who tried to make sense of the (often conflicting) corrections “ordered” by all three parties. (Yes! the pagemaker herself!) When I joined that journal, we co-copy editors assumed responsibility for reconciling the three sets of proof corrections. I also insisted on one more round in which only we see and approve how the corrections were input.
- NOTE: Clearly it’s quite possible that changes will be made in the proofs the author saw for that journal. If I thought a change was “substantive,” I would dialog with the author about it. (We also dialog with authors on changes during a month-long copyediting period; the author also approves the copyedited manuscript. That explains why the cut-rate one-and-a-half proofing cycle is feasible.) It’s also possible that the author might ask for a proof change that could not be accepted for language-related reasons. (Authors in that journal have varying levels of English language expertise.)
2) In another journal (this time a Spanish language one), three proof cycles have traditionally been used: first, to the author and back; second, to the copy editor and back; third, to the editorial board and then to the printer. Now, there is an unofficial fourth proof cycle because “to the printer” is replaced by “to the translation team” so that further changes, some substantive, may be made in the original version during the translation process. Those changes are always made based on dialog between the translation team and the author and fed back to the publisher to guarantee the two versions have identical content.
- NOTE: The “author proofs” were the first ones available, not the last ones before printing! Note also, that although that is the current process of a journal in Spain, it was also the process followed by other science journals I copyedited in New York in the 1970s. Clearly it has a long tradition. Note further, that although the author is involved in the translation process in this case, author approval of the “virtual” English proof is not part of the editorial process at all. (In three years, this has never led to an author complaint about quality, however. If there were a complaint, the English version could be changed, as it’s not the printed, official original.)
Finally, in both processes, it’s my impression that authors appreciate the dialog during the manuscript editing and translation processes much more than they value the reading of proofs. The key is gaining the authors’ confidence that our goal is to respect their intentions, their messages, and give the non-English-speaking author a “voice” he or she is comfortable with and that is correct.
Accuracy is the goal and getting to it is a collaborative effort. The editor ultimately answers for lack of accuracy if he or she doesn’t oversee processes that converge to give the level of quality possible in the circumstances.
M.E. Kerans
To say that you can't change an article after the author's approval is nonsense.
The editor is ultimately responsible for everything that is published in a journal and, as such, is able to make changes at any stage. Clearly, it is best to have the author's approval, but, on a busy weekly journal or if an author is hard to contact, it is not always possible to seek approval. Editors should be employed because they exercise judgement, not because they are robots merely dealing with publication process.
Now, whether or not an editor makes an appropriate change to a manuscript is a different matter. It is then for the journal's community (readers, authors, owners) to pass judgement on the editor's performance.
Kamran Abbasi
Editor, JRSM
To quote from the World Intellectual Property Organization Web site
(http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq/faqs.htm#rights):
"Copyright protection also includes moral rights, which include the right to claim authorship of a work, and the right to oppose changes to it if that could harm the creator's reputation."
Copyright is usually signed away or licensed to journals as a condition of publication, and the conditions of copyright transfer need to be examined and understood by the journal publisher and the authors who sign the forms. If Nature's copyright form authorizes the journal to make changes after the author has delivered "final" proofs, it appears there is nothing to be done other than file a complaint with the journal for insensitive editing or poor judgment. (Of all the words they could have deleted if it was a problem of space! Was it really necessary to delete that particular word?)
If the terms of copyright transfer do not make it clear whether the journal reserves the right to make further changes, it may be prudent for the publisher to remember that one of the authors' moral rights is for no further changes to be made without permission from the author.
Karen Shashok
I tend to agree.
I think an author should certainly inquire about changes made after proofs are approved. I would worry more about a change that altered MEANING rather than one, like this, that truly would not mislead the majority of readers, if any. A polite inquiry would be the first course of action, because indeed the reason could be an error, perhaps on the part of the typesetter, not the editor.
Another person on the list brought up a much more egregious case of editorial "overstepping"—when a rebuttal letter was drastically cut—and, while not knowing the full story here, I think that person may have more of a reason to truly complain. But the cutting of a single word THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE MEANING, whether or not it was done with the authors' permission, hardly seems like "editorial misconduct." Yes, inquire. But please, let's not go overboard.
Lisa Dittrich
Dear Doctor Mohebbi,
How can you conceive, that Nature will formulate an excuse to you about a previous error in your manuscript, after you have tried to make this error a scoop in an expert forum listserve?
After they did accept your manuscript, wouldn’t it have been wise for you to contact Nature directly about the error?
HNID
As I have mentioned in my first letter, I was seeking advice from the expert forum.
Did I ever write anything about an excuse?
Mohammad Reza Mohebbi
Dear Doctor Mohebbi,
I know very well that you did not mention an excuse, but suppose that Nature wanted to apologize after their mistake. At this stage (after the discussion in this forum), it is indisputable that Nature will feel ridiculed, especially if Nature is not guilty (and I m sure they are not guilty of what you presume).
I think that you have to apologize to Nature because you were too fast in your deduction! The proof? They have accepted your manuscript!
HNID
I must agree. A few weeks ago we discussed a possible decline in copyediting. My sense of that discussion was that proofing and copyediting had declined in quality and had been increasingly handed over to authors because of the cost of high-quality editors.
I would note that this discussion began with my recounting several recent incidents when I had been given page proofs, returned them, and some or all of the changes hadn't been made. In NO case was I given a final set of clean proofs (this was part of my complaint). Here the problem was that changes were NOT made when they were supposed to be; however, the key point in both cases is that there was a presumption that editors can make changes and publish after the manuscript leaves the hands of the authors.
This is clearly stated in most copyright agreements I have signed, which say that my work can be changed to meet the needs of the journal. I always find this scary. For example, as we can see here, the names by which cultural groups refer to themselves are quite sensitive. There is nothing in my contractual agreements to stop a journal from changing a carefully chosen label I have used to describe my participants with one I or my participants would be uncomfortable with. This has, in fact, happened to me. It doesn't happen often because (a) it is usually changed prior to the proof stage and (b) authors complain loudly when it does and publish elsewhere.
So complain. But I don't see this as an issue of ethics.
Nancy
Darling
Associate Editor, Journal
of Adolescence
