I am looking for a native English researcher working in the field of philosophy of science/philosophy of mathematics/mathematics to proofread and polish my manuscripts prepared for submission and also (if wanted) other texts within future projects of the small press company that I manage.
I always had difficulties with the journal editors when coming to the issues of language. Manuscripts with positive reviews and close to publication have been pending for many months due to language and I have struggled polishing and re-polishing them with the help of several people. Some of these manuscripts never met the editor’s expectation, although they acknowledged their substance, which is the case of the current job (I have a manuscript that was proofread by a native linguist, reread by a native mathematician, passed both journal’s reviews and accepted for publication as regard its content, but the editor still reject the language as “non idiomatic”, “difficult to read”, with “senseless sentences”, etc.).
Thus far I have worked with a native linguist familiar with the field of philosophy and psychology. I thought philosophical texts are clear enough for a native reader to intuit what a non-native author mean in its “weird-sounding” portions, but it seems that I was wrong. Now I am sure that the expertise in the particular field of the text (philosophy of science) is necessary for the proofreader. I feel that the original style, carrying local cultural characteristics, always remain embedded in the final proofread text. I understand that these difficulties are mere the nature of language, but I still cannot accept that a text proofread third times can be rejected.
I am looking for a philosopher of science, of mathematics, or a mathematician to polish my texts in order to make them readable, eliminate the weird non-native style, intuit the logical connection between the parts of the sentence even it is not clearly visible, comply with the standard style of exposition of the literature in that particular field, and, of course, correct the obvious grammar/orthographic/spelling errors. I intentionally left this text unpolished for you to have an image of what is to be done (I only run the automatic spellchecker on it).
I welcome PhD students or early career academics to answer my call. I cannot pay much (my offer is $4 per 300-word source page or co-authorship if preferred), but I can compensate with volume and other advantages. We also have books in projects, single authored or collections of texts in the field of philosophy of science, needing native proofreading. Editor positions and also co-authorship for the proofreaders will be available once the projects started.
Anyone with a full command of the English language and its nuances can do it… My day job entails proof-reading of a variety of literature and large publications, so I find your sole nomination quite a rash one… as your offerings always tend to be these days.
Let Trixie do it, I might know technical and rhetorical rules better, as well as philosophy in general, but Trixie is a better speller. You’re just looking for language nuances, and Trixie can research whatever he doesn’t understand conceptually. He would make the better choice between the two of us. Pound for pound, his grammar is best.
I used to know a philosophy text-book editor, was a member of the San Francisco Philosophy Group. He could resource someone if he himself won’t take the deal, and only if Trixie declines.
I nominated Turd as I thought he was best suited because of his knowledge of philosophy. I have absolutely no idea what you
mean by my offerings being rash or you having my number. Especially since we hardly ever interact with each other anyway
He stated that the journals had accepted the work in science and mathematics, but not the editor. Although his post reveals that he is not a native English speaker, his unpolished English isn’t bad at all, easy to read. I suspect that if he tried, he could polish it up to the point of being hardly distinguishable from a native speaker. Yet the editor keeps rejecting the work … ?
He is concerned with interpreting mathematics and science. Depending on the level of academics, sometimes such modern day rhetoric can get tricky and mathematicians are seldom quality writers. So perhaps the issue is related to the sophistication of the particular field. Of the regulars here, I suspect only Carleas or I would be able to know what it is that we were really saying (and I’m not too sure of Carleas ).
Publishers are the van guard of the propaganda, the gate keepers of authoritarian information. If a work is not representing content of favor to a political party or social group, publishers risk their business by publishing it at all. Perhaps “you English ain’t good enough” is merely an excuse. And in that case, a socially qualified or credited proofreader is what would be required so as to continue his battle against politics.
So I’m not so certain as to what is really going on or what he really needs to get to his actual goal.
Such a manuscript as this sounds like it needs to be sent out to differing appropriate agencies/copywriters, as you wouldn’t expect a linguist to edit the math or philosophy sections… and vice versa, etc. etc. etc.
The main editor marks which parts of the manuscript will need to be seen by specialised agencies/copywriters, and sent out with a brief attached for guidance on the expected look and feel of the final edition that will go to publication… of which the editor should be giving him guidance on.
Having a main editor means that consistency will be kept throughout the document, and the outsourced parts edited back in with what should be a seamless join.
Actually, you’ve showned remarkably weak showings in the science and math section James. I may lampoon, but I know my history of mathematics fairly well. I personally would prefer none of us doing it, but I think Trixie knows LaTeX, and that’s what matters most here. You’ve been proven wrong on too many occasions, and even have been asked my mathematicians coming to this site begging you to stop.
I’ve never seriously bother with math here, not pushing past elementary classical Greek concepts. I’m more interested in the pure mathematics of it’s ontology and syntax, and how it relates to epistemology. I can do that in the most basic of complex works. You would be hopelessly lost if the paper started discussing original formulations of new kinds of math. You only get excited if it relates to your engineering background.
I’m still for Trixie on this one, Carleas never shown a aptitude for this either. I’ve seen threads where you two argue over traffic, both missing basic fundamentals a normal thinker would of gotten on movement. It was pointed out, both of you just blinked and pushed on with your mouth breathing contest. Situational Awareness of intent as well as context would be key here, as well as knowing when the paper is absolute bullshit. You only serve bullshit, and have the nerve to play it straight faced, like were not supposed to laugh when we read it.
I did train myself as a publisher, have the equipment mostly still, and have been in editorial rooms, etc.
Other factors can be the cause of rejection as well. He may be submitting papers from authors with unknown presence on the net (most math papers are free online), or nobody took the time to read the journal to notice it is set up much differently from the standards of the papers being sent. If the paper looks like it would be a paint in the ass to set up correctly, they may just go for the next pdf that is.
Furthermore, some journals I’ve seen are extremely expensive, over $1000 a issue. You literally gotta see their set up in advance, then know someone, just to get in. I think it is silly honestly, made sense back in the 60s, not today. But tenure is awarded on publications. Why academic eorks on philosophy aren’t worth much anymore, the wrong people are writing it- assistant professors trying to get to home base. It’s hard to find good works in academic papers anymore. Lots of verbage and ever smaller ideas.
Well this sounds interesting, but such questions to the effect of what would entail the proofreading,-what level of math/sciencewould be involved, how many pages would it require, would need to be presented initially.
Most of as have qualifications, but what would these be, in terms of allowances of time to this project, since most of us, to the best of my knowledge are occupied elsewhere from academics, busy with family, work etc.
So before even those qualified could answer, these points would need to be clarified.
Yes… the op does need to divulge further details on the content to be edited, and what the publisher’s expectation and vision of the final print-ready draft is.
).
