OXFORD INTERNATIONAL
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LINGUISTICS
SECOND EDITION
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF’S POLICY ON COMPLETELY
REWRITING
FIRST EDITION ARTICLES
- Authors are expected to use as much of the first
edition text as they can. There is plenty of good prose in the first
edition, and, as I have explained many times in the past, with
justification from OUP’s production staff, revisions must be submitted on
the galleys. This approach to revision must be the first option taken
by all authors. Hence, revision is not to be seen as an opportunity to
make stylistic changes in first-edition prose that is otherwise perfectly
good and sound, nor is it an invitation simply to jettison text that an
author now feels does not sound right. Doing revisions on the galleys
according to OUP guidelines can be a bit time-consuming. But not doing
so actually increases the overall work required to get the
revised edition in shape for reprinting – OUP staff is well schooled in
inserting revisions of the kind required, and completely new text causes
immense problems of notation, cross-referencing, special symbols, and
other formatting issues that are already solved with the first-edition
text.
- As the revision guidelines say, in cases where there
are “extensive revisions to the
previous text (i.e., not merely adding, moving, or deleting chunks of text
but intensive, line-by-line changes), it can be resubmitted as a
completely new file.” However, this allowance is the decision of the
Editor-in-Chief of the Encyclopedia, not the decision of the authors.
I spent hours with Consulting Editors on determining the extent of changes
for each article, and the revision categories that resulted from those
discussions are a matter of contract. I went through this procedure so
that I could have a sense of what articles might in fact need extensive
revision. To disregard these revision categories and completely rewrite
papers is to cause more work for everyone, including the authors
themselves, who will very likely be asked to redo their revisions on the
galleys, as originally requested. When I have received complete rewrites,
in more than 95% of the cases, I have seen that the “extensive,
line-by-line changes” are unnecessary and involve stylistic modifications,
simple deletions, and rearrangements; the truly new material is most often
easily inserted according to the revision guidelines. This is not to say
that there have not been acceptable complete rewrites, but these have been
few. If an author believes that the revision necessitates a complete
rewrite, he/she should first send a substantial sample to me and the
consulting editor for the area. I will then decide, in consultation with
the editor, whether a complete rewrite is allowable.