2. Policies ensure
a consistent appearance and tone throughout the journal. While we
hold to them firmly, we recognize that they are less amenable to
uniformity than conventions. One frequently invoked policy discourages
the use of italics for emphasis. We work with you instead to find
a syntax that highlights your words or those of your sources without
the distraction of italics and the phrase "my italics."
Less problematic policies call for the elimination of deictics whenever
possible and for open rather than close punctuation—thus the
absence of commas in this sentence before rather and after
thus.
3.
Preferences occasion most of the work and most
of the concern. Some preferences fall under general
rubrics: we eliminate verbal repetitions; we replace
passive verbs with active ones where it seems fitting;
we shorten wherever we can do so without impeding
flow (two common targets are is-that constructions
and the phrase the reader); we try to remove
unintended or momentary ambiguities. We also assess
your argument and style from the point of view of
our likely audience. Distinctions articulated for
the specialist may be cumbersome for, or impenetrable
to, other readers. Many changes, of course, are isolated
matters or touch on idiosyncrasies, not susceptible
to generalizations; a given essay may have its own
patterns. Sometimes, too, it is difficult for us to
tell conscious choice from unconscious habit. In short,
where we think of livelier, clearer wording, we propose
it, but if the preference is tentative, we confine
it to a query with our rationale.
Even
though we may overwrite your text, in no sense do
we impose our changes on you. We expect you to use
your judgment to accept or reject them.
