03 Copy Editing Proofreading & Copyright

Copy Editing, Proofreading & Copyright Prof. Norman MacLeod School of Earth Sciences & Engineering, Nanjing University Copy Editing, Proofreading & Copyright The Publishing Process Like all complex human activities Manuscript Acceptance the process of taking an accepted Prepress manuscript and turning it into a Copy Editing Typesetting finished, printed publication is Proof-reading broken down into stages with dif- Revision ferent activities performed, usually Proof Approval by different people, at each stage. Indexing Final Proof Authors are involved directly in Press only some of these stages, but Printing their work is effected by them all. Delivery Direct Author Involvement Copy-editing Proof-reading Proof approval The Publishing Process Copy Editing Reviewers are supposed to focus Copy Editor Tasks on the content of a manuscript and Style conformity Clarity acceptance of a work by the Editor Standard English refers primarily to the content. In the Grammar & usage past, accepted manuscripts were Spelling given to a copy editor who checked Punctuation Capitalization and corrected the manuscript for Cross referencing non-content-related issues prior to Typographic errors the text being type-set into a proof. Fact checking Unfortunately, this part of the pub- Copyright infringement Reference checking lication process as been scaled back drastically in many journals which now rely on authors to do much (most?) of their own copy editing when the revised manuscript is returned for Editor acceptance. The Publishing Process Copy Editing Marks When copy editing was done by hand and on paper, copy-editors dev- eloped a set of marks that could be made quick- ly and easily on the text to signify various adjust- ments and corrections. These marks are still em- ployed today by many people who hand-correct manuscripts (e.g., supervisors correcting student papers), but in the publishing business they have been superseded largely by software tools used to edit, correct and comment on electronic manuscripts. The Publishing Process Electronic Copy Editing The Publishing Process Electronic Copy Editing The Publishing Process Electronic Copy Editing The Publishing Process Electronic Copy Editing The Publishing Process Copy Editing If you are contacted by a copy editor Count yourself lucky. Work with them, they are trying to help you. Focus on preserving the content, let them guide you in matters of style. Learn from them. If you are not contacted by a copy editor Resolve to do the copy-editors job yourself. Go through the manuscript separately for each task. Conform to the house style instructions where those are given, in all other matters strive for consistency. In future, try to fold copy editing into your writing as much as you can. The Publishing Process Copy Editing Guides The Publishing Process Copy Editing Software AutoCrit (https://www.autocrit.com) Consistency Checker (https://intelligentediting.com)* Grammarly (https://www.grammarly.com) Hemingway (http://hemingwayapp.com)* CreativeWriter (https://masterwriter.com/creative_writers/) * Free app or online system. The Publishing Process Copy Editing Software ProWritingAid (https://prowritingaid.com) SmartEdit (https://www.smart-edit.com) After the Deadline (http://www.afterthedeadline.com)* * Free app or online system. Copy Editing, Proofreading & Copyright Proofs & Proofreading Proofs & Proofreading What is a Galley Proof? Published by Associazione Teriologica Italiana Online first – 2013 Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy A galley proof is a preliminary, unbound Available online at: http://www.italian-journal-of-mammalogy.it/article/view/6299/pdf doi:10.4404/hystrix-24.1-6299 version of a publication (journal article, Research Article Geometric Morphometric Approaches to Acoustic Signal Analysis in Mammalian Biology book section or book) meant to indicate Norman M!"L#$%a,∗, Jonathan K&'#(#&b, Kate E. J$)#*c aPalaeontology Department, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, UK bHerbarium, Library, Art & Archives Directorate, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3AB, UK cInstitute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regents Park, London NW1 4RY, UK the final format of the typeset work. This is Keywords: Abstract morphometrics meant to be reviewed by the author, editor bats In the quarter century since the development of geometric morphometrics the community of prac- echolocation titioners has largely been occupied with training issues and anatomy-based applications research in systematics the biological sciences. However, just as the scope of geometry transcends comparative anatomy, acoustics the potential scope of morphometric analysis transcends investigations of the form and shape of or- geometry ganismal bodies. An important area of opportunity for morphometricians lies in the application of shape analysis geometric methods to non-traditional form/shape analysis problems. To illustrate the potential of and publisher’s proofreaders (if any) for morphometric data analysis approaches to contribute to investigations outside its traditional base Article history: in (physical) morphology we report here results of an investigation into the morphometrics of bat Received: 27 May 2012 echolocation calls. By treating Hanning windowed spectrograms of bat search echolocation calls Accepted: 9 July 2012 as complex 3D surfaces, and by using a variant of eigensurface analysis to sample and compare these surfaces, it is possible to identify bat species to very high levels of accuracy (> 90% for raw errors and then returned to the publisher cross-validated training set identifications, > 80% for jackknifed training set identifications), even Acknowledgements The order of authorship reflects the relative contribution of individuals for species (e.g., Myotis) whose spectrograms have resisted separation into species-specific clusters to the writing of this article. We would like to thank the following using traditional spectrogram descriptors. Moreover, the shape modeling capabilities of geometric have provided support and/or encouragement for the bat echolocation morphometrics render the complex mathematical subspaces within which these spectrogram shape research reported herein: Charlotte Walters, Lucinda Kirkpatrick, Stuart Parsons, and Alanna Collen. This investigation depended critically on data reside – along with the discriminant functions used to separate training-set clusters – inter- the EchoBank bat echolocation call archive. All contributors to this pretable in a simple, intuitive, and biologically informative manner. These results demonstrate the for correction. archive are acknowledged here and thanked for their e!orts. rich source of species-specific information bioacoustic signal structures represent. They also illustrate the type of advances that can be made when morphometricians venture beyond the traditional confines of their field to address wider questions of significance in the biological and the physical sciences. Introduction atical manifolds – unified by the fact that each point in the space cor- It is commonplace to read that a revolution has taken place in morpho- responds to a possible configuration of n landmark or semilandmark points, usually after the canonical “nuisance” factors of position, size Galley proofs represent the last metrics. When making such statements most authors refer to the development of what has come to be called “geometric morphometrics” and rotation of have been eliminated from consideration. There are an (GM), a term that usually goes undefined even in review articles about infinite number of such shape spaces. These geometric spaces make no it (e.g., Adams et al. 2004). A systematic evaluation of the morphomet- assumptions regarding the size of the landmark/semilandmark sets that ric literature reveals the presence of at least two competing definitions fall into their domain (n can be any integer), the rules used to specify opportunity authors will have to catch and of GM. The larger proportion of articles, either explicitly or implicitly, locations of the landmarks/semilandmarks, the nature of the objects on identify it with a specific set of data-analysis procedures (e.g., Pro- which these landmarks/semilandmarks are located, or the range of pro- crustes superposition, relative warps analysis, principal warps analysis) cedures used to analyze such shape coordinate data. that were formulated originally to operate on these Cartesian coordinate While this “strong” definition of GM has the advantage of enfor- data directly, as multivariable data sets, without transforming them first cing conceptual consistency, it is perhaps too restrictive if it is under- correct any errors that have been made in into scalar distances angles, areas, form factors, etc. as was commonly stood to apply only to the subset of GM methods that operate in the the case prior to the 1990s. In our view this is the “weak” definition of Kendall shape space sensu stricto (e.g., principal warps analysis, rel- GM; inadequate insofar as the technique lists offered are always exem- ative warps analysis). For example, the outline data analysis methods plary rather than definitive and deficient in that no attempt is made to of elliptical Fourier analysis (Kuhl and Giardina, 1982; Ferson et al., the copy-editing and/or typesetting explain what unites these (and other) data analysis approaches together 1985) and eigenshape analysis (Lohmann, 1983; MacLeod, 1999) are Author’semployed routinely Galley by geometric morphometricians, but neither oper- either

Load more