Re: science writing/editing/publishing/journalism

Shazam! No reason, it's just magic. So "chris_tine49@xxxxxxxxxxx"
<chris.editrix@xxxxxxxxx> said:

>
>You called, Ivor.
>
>> It's tedious, painstaking work in my experience. The authors can't
>> write but don't accept that they can't. Everything needs to be
>> carefully referenced and the references need to be sourced and
>> supplied. Guess who has to do that? I don't know where Pastorio thinks
>> you can get good money doing it, but generally it's as poorly paid as
>> any kind of editing. The best money for an editor, in my experience,
>> is in finance, because everyone likes to pretend that the subject
>> matter is difficult to understand.
>>
>> >I'm in the information gathering phase at the moment and any you can
>> >provide would be appreciated.
>>
>> In a moment, Christine will be along. This is her field. My best
>> advice to you is to pay heed to what she has to say, although
>> critically so, because she often talks oughts where she ought to talk
>> ises, if you know what I mean.
>
>Bob has already pointed out that you are considering more than editing.
>I seem to recall you are thinking science, not medical? BTW, Ivor,
>Bob's beautiful wife does ad copy and promotional stuff in addition to
>other things, and therein lies the bigger money.
>

That explains it! If she's writing ads for Big Pharma, there's gold in
them thar hills.

>I'll limit my my discussion to the less glamorous parts of medical
>editing
>
>There's editing and there's editing. Ivor may be thinking mainly of
>copyediting, which is indeed tedious and painstaking.

Well, it's what I mostly do. He asked about my experience.

The editors of medical journals tend to be rather better qualified
than I am!

> These jobs tend
>to be working for journals. That's mainly about following style
>preferences for the particular journal.

Don't be stupid. I feel aggrieved that an educator belittles a job
that although commonly felt to be entirely mechanical, involves a
great deal more than that. The problem for an editor is always that
writers think they can write, so never believe that there's anything
to fixing their ***, and the job is to make it look as though they
can.

> For medical journals in the US
>that usually involves International Committee of Medical Journals
>Editors (ICMJE) guidelines and AMA or APA style (the later for psych
>or education stuff, mainly).
>
>Some editors work for pharmaceutical companies or research/marketing
>organizations. The Mayo Clinic, for example, has a publication
>"sweatshop" to which researchers give data and from which a paper
>emerges. Pharm stuff is about regulations, documentation, and specific
>formats. (If you have qualms about supression of information that's
>probably not the way to go. ) Pay is very good.

Not for editors, I'm guessing.

> Government jobs tend to
>pay well, too (NIH, CDC, etc).
>

Not particularly well for editors, if it's anything like here.

>I'm an author's editor. I work for the writers (medical school faculty)
>and in some cases am one of the authors. I do more substantive editing
>and often shape the direction or content of papers from the beginning
>(or at the end when they just aren't working).

What you clearly don't know is that an editor for a journal is more
often than not a project editor, and does the same. It all depends who
you're working for.

>
>That means I do the copy editing PLUS writing and rewriting, creating
>tables and figures, calling authors on failed logic or research, on
>unsubstatiated contentions or statistical, math, and presentation
>flaws.

Yes, so do I.

What makes it particularly tedious is that the cunts always think they
know best, and don't. Only lawyers are worse to work with.

> I also work on continuing medical education/curricular
>materials, posters, all kinds of collateral materials; sometimes I
>create them as well as fixing them. I give presentations and writing
>workshops at professional meetings (and elsewhere).
>
>It's not boring. I'm considered a "team" member.

Bless.

> I have a fair amount
>of longevity and respect (that comes from a winning track record), so
>the writers I work with tend to be more docile than docs usually are
>(though there are those who insist on using "mitigate" instead of
>"militate" just because they are vascular surgeons and that's the way
>they've always done it, by gum.
>

"A winning track record". Such vanity!

>Author's editing jobs are rare and not terribly well paid, though
>better than copyediting.

Yes. I get paid more than I would if I did straight copyediting. I say
I'm a copy editor so as not to confuse the hoi polloi with the fine
gradations of editing in different fields.

> Some people make a good living doing medical
>editing/writing freelance but seldom start out that way (Bob's wife
>being an exception).
>

Most medical writers in my experience are doctors who begin by writing
a bit here and there and then make a career change. It's well rewarded
partly because to tempt a doctor out of medicine requires dollars.

>The average salary for a medical editor of my experience (lots),
>education (BS), and gender (female) is around $60,000; change the sex
>to male and make it $70,000. If you are working in academia, subtract
>$10,000.
>

Fucking hell! I'm in the wrong country for sure. No one gets anything
like that here, regardless of their experience and regardless which
kind of editing they do.

>I suspect the median is lower, though. The pharm stuff skews the mean.
>

You wouldn't get anything like that working on journals.

If you're on 60k in Chickpea, you're doing pretty well. Pump it up to
big-city prices and that's a mountain of beans.


Dr Zen
Clap your hands say yeah.
That's either shilling for a top-class rock act,
or the overexuberant outcome of too much cask wine.
Decide for yourself.
http://gollyg.blogspot.com
.