gabrielmoreira Academic Editorial Judgment
The Problem
Complex editorial style rules require judgment, not pattern-matching:
Rule: "Use past tense for completed research, present for ongoing implications"
Bad (mechanical): Find all verbs, check tense
Good (judgment): Does this describe what was done (past) or what it means (present)?
APA7, Chicago, MLA — all have context-dependent rules.
The Solution
Apply critical thinking to editorial decisions:
1. Identify the Rule's Intent
| Rule | Surface Form | Actual Intent |
|---|---|---|
| Past tense for methods | "We analyzed..." | Completed actions |
| Present for conclusions | "Results show..." | Ongoing validity |
| Active voice | Subject-verb-object | Clarity, attribution |
2. Check Context Before Applying
❌ Mechanical: "Change all 'is' to 'was'"
✅ Judgment: "Is this describing what IS true, or what WAS done?"
Example:
- "The sample was collected..." ✅ Past (completed action)
- "The effect is significant..." ✅ Present (ongoing validity)
- "Figure 1 shows..." ✅ Present (the figure currently shows)
3. Preserve Author Voice
Don't "fix" intentional style choices:
- Regional spellings (behaviour/behavior)
- Disciplinary conventions
- Established terminology
Decision Tree
1. Is this a hard rule (spelling, citation format)?
→ Apply mechanically
2. Is this a judgment call (tense, voice, word choice)?
→ Check context
→ Consider author intent
→ Apply if clearly wrong, query if ambiguous
3. Am I confident this improves the text?
→ No: Leave a suggestion, don't change
→ Yes: Change with explanation
When to Apply
- Editing academic manuscripts
- Applying style guides (APA, MLA, Chicago)
- Any editorial work with context-dependent rules
Tags
academic editing style-guides judgment