Editing Dilemma: Work Alone or Collaborate?

Minutes before the bus arrived, I scrambled to delete mistakes and type in corrections
on my roommates paper. My Japanese roommate often solicited my input on her
English essays; the only problem was that she asked too late for me to do more than
just change things for her. This word begins with a vowel, so you need to use an
before it, Id try to teach her, and shed nod hurriedly, letting me revise. Dont forget
to use past tense, Id remind her as she glanced at her watch again. With a flurry of
saving and printing and flying out the door, my roommate would yell Thank you! and
Id sink back into the chair, wondering whether I did right in editing all that incorrect
grammar. In these experiences with my roommate, I felt guilty improving her grammar
because her grade could have been affected. Such stakes may not apply to a magazine
context, since authors do not receive academic grades, but their reputation suffers or
soars depending on how well readers understand and enjoy an authors articles. Thus,
editors who change things without consulting authors first may increase the quality of
the article and make the ratings go up although an author lacks real merit for such
work. Editors must collaborate with authors to preserve the authors work,
despite internal temptation or external pressure to make final decisions
themselves.
Editors must take care to be honest in their work and not to overstep their
boundaries by revising without an authors consent. While editors try their best to
communicate honest information, that information must also be presented in an honest
wayincluding not revising to the point that it is dishonest to credit the author for the
work. In addition, if an editor ends up doing more revising and rewriting than an author
expects, the author may question whether we are reliable to publish the authors true
words. Instead, we must communicate openly about what changes must be made and
then be honest in using the authors decisions. As President Gordon B. Hinckley
describes in his book Standing for Something, It is possible to be honest every day. It is
possible to live so that others can trust uscan trust our words, our motives, and our
actions. Our examples are vital to those who sit at our feet as well as those who watch
from a distance. I believe, as President Hinckley, that our own honesty in daily
decisions can influence others to be more honest. In a magazine context, those who
watch from a distance may be readers, and those who sit at our feet may include
other editors and the author. As we keep our word in using the ideas the author
intended to convey, we will also augment the authors desire to do honest work.
When a substantive edit would improve the clarity and logic of the article, the editor
should work closely with the author in order to make sure that both parties agree. The
question that I have had, however, is who suggests the revision first: editor or author.
From the BYU Magazine blog, I read part of a letter written to an author in which the
editor admitted that he had researched and rewritten a section of the article, saying he
went a little overboard editorially. I wondered whether it is best that magazine editors
rewrite first and then ask authors for approval, or wait until theyve given the author a
chance to rewrite. In either case, I believe it is important that the author approves all
the changes made.
One experience when I faced the temptation to revise without receiving approval
was in volunteering for BYUs Journal of Womens Studies. I was working with an
author who was serving a full-time LDS mission in another countryand so exchanging
feedback was challenging because of her limited computer time. After not hearing back
for several weeks, I needed to move forward to hit the publication deadline. I resumed
editing, but a couple weeks later I received an email with her disapproval of certain
major changes I had made. I then could work alongside her to make the paper clearer.

Had I continued editing without regarding her preferences, perhaps her article would
not have reflected her true writing style. In retrospect, I could have explained the
timeline for publication to be more honest in following her preferences. On a magazine
staff, having a lack of communication may cause a similar issue of editor opinion versus
author opinion to arise, but setting clear expectations could help this problem be
avoided.
In some cases, preserving the authors original work is inherent in the task because
there is little freedom for substantive revision; then the issue of honesty arises in
whether an editor will stick to the small details. As an intern at the Maxwell Institute, I
help copyedit articles for the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and addresses for the
Mormon Theology Seminar. I focus on issues like references and fact-checking, so when
I have ideas for larger issues, I must refrain from giving that input. On a magazine,
editors may be printing speeches from conferences and also have limited flexibility to
change ideas, so they must be honest in respecting those limits.
Preserving the authors voice is easiest when editors leave most revisions to the
author. In my work as a writing fellow for other students at BYU, my duty is not to
revise the paper but only to give feedback. For example, I write feedback in the margins
of the paper and we have writing conferencesbut students must revise their own
papers. This experience has helped me to guide others in writing one hundred percent
of the paper. However, this may differ in a magazine context; my interest in making the
article appealing to readers would be greater, and I might edit with stronger opinions
about what would fit the magazines mission. Then I would need to exercise more
restraint in giving the author the final say.
Editors also must maintain integrity if an author asks them to change an article
dramatically. If I were asked to change an article, I would still want the author to
approve the final edits in order to be honest to our readersjust as I would hope that
other magazine editors would do. As President Hinckley says in Standing for
Something, Honesty and integrity comprise the very underpinnings of society. . . .
Indeed, the strength and safety of any organizationincluding the familylie in the
integrity of its members. Thus, a magazine staff is strongest when all editors and
authors maintain integrity. Without integrity, editors may choose to change the article
so that it communicates an entirely different message. This could be fine if the author
later agrees with the changes, and it would be even better if the editors name is added
to the byline.
I experienced pressure to change articles dramatically as a senior editor for the BYU
journal Schwa: Linguistics and Language. The articles had been turned over to the staff
to edit, meaning we did not have direct contact with the authors (only the head editor
did). One author even mentioned that he didnt care what happened to the article now
that it had already helped him get into a masters program, so we had the flexibility to
make many changes. A few articles had solid research but lacked a strong thesis, so the
other editors and I improved the arguments. However, I felt it immoral to invent a
thesis and restructure paragraphs that the author may not agree with. I would have
preferred more contact to ensure authors consent. Perhaps in a magazine context, a
similar situation could occur if an author submits an article anonymously, and editors
must preserve the authors ideas while still fitting the magazines mission.
For me, my obligation to preserve an authors reputation includes open discussion
with the author about editing changes. I believe in the importance of staying within the
boundaries of the editing task at hand. Despite the temptation to make an argument
clearer without approval or the pressure from an author to just change whatever I
want, I know that exercising restraint in my own changes and following the authors
final decisions will help me to be honest as an editor.

Works Cited
Hinckley, Gordon B. Standing for Something: 10 Neglected Virtues That Will Heal Our
Hearts and Homes. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2001.