Academic Legal Writing - Eugene Volokh [144]
a. Seriously consider any claims that something you wrote is unclear, inadequately proven, unpersuasive, wrong, or inelegant. If your first reaction is to say “no, my way is better,” that might just be because you've fallen in love with your own words, and don't see the flaws that the more impartial editors see. You might want to adopt a presumption in favor of accepting proposed edits—if both your view and the editor's seem reasonable, go with the editor's, which is more objective and closer to the likely view of most readers.
b. Consider especially seriously claims that you're mischaracterizing a source or making an unsound argument. If the editor thinks this is so, then some readers might, too. Moreover, journals are entitled to insist that you correct any substantive mistakes—ensuring accuracy is part of their job.
c. If material needs to be inserted, write it yourself, or at least heavily edit the proposed insertions. While you should take seriously editors' objections, you should be more skeptical about their proposed solutions, especially suggestions for new wording (new text, new parentheticals for footnotes, a new abstract, and the like). These proposed changes are often good, but they can contain errors, and they can be inconsistent with your article's style. Feel free to heavily edit the proposed insertions, and other proposed changes, or just reject them and write your own insertions instead.
d. Look carefully at proposed changes both in the text and in the footnotes. The footnotes, as well as the text, will be published under your name, and any errors will be your fault. Check the editors' work, just like they will check yours.
e. Reject proposed changes that you think make matters worse. This is your right as the author (unless the unchanged text would be incorrect or misleading), and in my experience most journals acknowledge that it's your right. If, after taking seriously the suggestion, you think the current text is fine and the proposed change is worse, reject the change—change it back yourself, or mark it with a “STET” (the editing term for “change back”).
f. Investigate suspicious-seeming claims of erroneous usage. If you think that some objection is unfounded (for instance, if the editors are saying that it's wrong to put a preposition at the end of a sentence, and you disagree), look it up. Check a usage dictionary—for example, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, or Bryan Garner's A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage—or do a Lexis search to see how reputable publications do this. There are many usage myths (such as the myth that you may not end a sentence with a preposition), and editors sometimes believe them. If the sources say that you are correct, and if on reflection you believe your usage is not just correct but also more readable, then STET the change, and, if asked, politely explain to the editors why you believe you're right.
g. Be skeptical about claims of “journal policy.” Generally, when you're making a reasonable request, and the journal responds just with “no, that's against journal policy,” that very response is often evidence that the journal doesn't have a better reason for its objection. (It may also be evidence, however, that your request is unreasonable, and the editors are understandably tired of arguing with you about it.) Claims that “we need to maintain consistency within the volume” are also weak. Very few people will read several articles within one volume (or even one issue) of the journal and say “this article contains split infinitives and that one doesn't—how inconsistent.”
Obviously, you and the editors might eventually reach an impasse, and you might be the one who has to give in. But don't give in too quickly. If you feel strongly about the issue, say so to the editors, explain why your position is sensible, and explain that the article will be primarily seen as your work, not the journal's. Often, the editors will be persuaded.
h. But remember that your article should be readable,