I’ve edited or copyedited hundreds of articles in nearly 25 years, and I can think of several reasons why I’m glad my name isn’t on them. You touched on one at the end: My job is to help make the writer’s arguments as clear and compelling as possible—even when I disagree with them. It’s refinement, not endorsement. Anonymity lets me work objectively, unhindered by concerns about what conclusions people might draw about me from my association with possibly controversial opinions. Yes, it might be nice to get credit for a particularly good sentence that I suggested, but at the same time, it’s nice not to be blamed for a clunky passage that I tried to fix but was overruled on—by the writer, by the editor above me on the masthead, or by company lawyers. In the end, my role is to support the writer’s voice, not insert my own, and I’m perfectly happy toiling in the shadows.
I came to write a comment, then found David F. had already written it better than I could have.
I'll add one thing: in the inevitable negotiation that is editing, the fact that only the writer's name is public keeps roles clear. It's what keeps the editor's ego in check, it's what keeps both sides focused on the task at hand: making sure the author's voice comes through clearly. Add the editor's name and you muddle that whole dynamic.
Invisible contributors power every field. Pilots earn praise for safe flights; overnight maintenance crews don’t. Surgeons bask in acclaim; anesthesiologists, techs, and nurses vanish from the story. Tech CEOs grace covers; engineers stay nameless. We cling to lone-genius myths, yet excellence is always collective. Your editor-credit idea nudges culture toward that truth, but prestige dynamics still steer the world.
I find it strange that so much of social media is taken up with people arguing over an article where they're mostly reacting to the headline and subhead – the one part of the article that the author almost certainly didn't write, and which is commonly a more contentious version of the argument the author is making. I think the role of subeditors should be more upfront in this respect, because they cause a lot of heat online without getting any personal blowback. But I guess my version is more about blame than credit!
Maybe editors should add a reading comprehension quiz that commentors need to take before they qualify to leave a comment. Could clean up a lot of comment sections actually
Suggestion for a slight modification -- give the editor's name PLUS some account of the views of both parties. Like a judicial decision. "Written by Jane Doe, edited by Joe Blow, Doe concurs in part and dissents in part with Blow's cuts to the section on shrimp biology."
This would allow interested readers a glimpse of the process. I would not mind at all if my piece was followed by a note saying "the perfect ending of this article was suggested by the editor." And if a different piece had a note like "the seemingly contradictory quote in the 6th paragraph of this article was inserted by the editor's boss, whom the editor must respect and whom the writer believes to be an interfering overconfident thug."
I've had wonderful editors and meh editors and godawful ones -- tho to be fair often the latter were doing the bidding of higher ups. I see no downside to letting readers behind the curtain.
Though, like your friend, I prefer the editorless world of Substack, where my merits and faults are honestly shown to the world -- rather than being disguised by some institution's style and concerns. At least here, my byline is an honest signal -- not a label that hides the editor, or which makes others' thoughts look like mine.
>>>This is one of the rare instances where academia does it better. Journal articles include footnotes and acknowledgment sections where authors thank those who helped them with the paper.
Yes but NOT QUITE. One function that rarely if ever gets credited is translation and/or language review. I do that for various academic papers, the "language review" often contains a fairly substantial degree of clarification and occasionally rewriting and I don't recall a more than a very few papers I (or another translator/"language" editor) was credited in. As far as I understand, the gist here lies in the idea that a translator/language reviewer gets paid for their work kinda outside the research cycle process and that it's external to the content, and if they choose to go above and beyond pure translation in their comments that's their sort of... pro bono (pro scientia?) choice. This also relies on a naive notion of translation and transparency of language but here we are.
Also, peer reviewers are not typically credited by name as they're supposed to be anonymous, despite the amount of input they might have into the final published paper?
Give editors credit!!! In the case of book publishing, not giving editors credit tilts all the power to the marketing department and fewer interesting books are published.
It’s a neat idea, but it creates an accountability gap. If two people are responsible for something then, really, no one is responsible since each could blame the other. Whereas in the current system the author bears full responsibility and the editor gets neither the credit nor the blame.
I always credit my editor in both the preface and the acknowledgements. My agent also contributes valuable edits, and I thank her too. Martin Amis was known for his arrogance, but the humbler writers among us know that books are always a group effort.
As both an author and book editor myself I see the case for this. Solid argument. I've been named a few times in the acknowledgments. But that's not the same.
I’ve edited or copyedited hundreds of articles in nearly 25 years, and I can think of several reasons why I’m glad my name isn’t on them. You touched on one at the end: My job is to help make the writer’s arguments as clear and compelling as possible—even when I disagree with them. It’s refinement, not endorsement. Anonymity lets me work objectively, unhindered by concerns about what conclusions people might draw about me from my association with possibly controversial opinions. Yes, it might be nice to get credit for a particularly good sentence that I suggested, but at the same time, it’s nice not to be blamed for a clunky passage that I tried to fix but was overruled on—by the writer, by the editor above me on the masthead, or by company lawyers. In the end, my role is to support the writer’s voice, not insert my own, and I’m perfectly happy toiling in the shadows.
I came to write a comment, then found David F. had already written it better than I could have.
I'll add one thing: in the inevitable negotiation that is editing, the fact that only the writer's name is public keeps roles clear. It's what keeps the editor's ego in check, it's what keeps both sides focused on the task at hand: making sure the author's voice comes through clearly. Add the editor's name and you muddle that whole dynamic.
Invisible contributors power every field. Pilots earn praise for safe flights; overnight maintenance crews don’t. Surgeons bask in acclaim; anesthesiologists, techs, and nurses vanish from the story. Tech CEOs grace covers; engineers stay nameless. We cling to lone-genius myths, yet excellence is always collective. Your editor-credit idea nudges culture toward that truth, but prestige dynamics still steer the world.
I find it strange that so much of social media is taken up with people arguing over an article where they're mostly reacting to the headline and subhead – the one part of the article that the author almost certainly didn't write, and which is commonly a more contentious version of the argument the author is making. I think the role of subeditors should be more upfront in this respect, because they cause a lot of heat online without getting any personal blowback. But I guess my version is more about blame than credit!
Maybe editors should add a reading comprehension quiz that commentors need to take before they qualify to leave a comment. Could clean up a lot of comment sections actually
The editing for magazines can get intense. Long ago, an editor and I had a 15-minute phone call about a semi-colon.
It might also be fruitful to credit the headline writer too. So much of our online anger comes from there, not the content itself.
Suggestion for a slight modification -- give the editor's name PLUS some account of the views of both parties. Like a judicial decision. "Written by Jane Doe, edited by Joe Blow, Doe concurs in part and dissents in part with Blow's cuts to the section on shrimp biology."
This would allow interested readers a glimpse of the process. I would not mind at all if my piece was followed by a note saying "the perfect ending of this article was suggested by the editor." And if a different piece had a note like "the seemingly contradictory quote in the 6th paragraph of this article was inserted by the editor's boss, whom the editor must respect and whom the writer believes to be an interfering overconfident thug."
I've had wonderful editors and meh editors and godawful ones -- tho to be fair often the latter were doing the bidding of higher ups. I see no downside to letting readers behind the curtain.
Though, like your friend, I prefer the editorless world of Substack, where my merits and faults are honestly shown to the world -- rather than being disguised by some institution's style and concerns. At least here, my byline is an honest signal -- not a label that hides the editor, or which makes others' thoughts look like mine.
I cannot agree with this more. Most of my public writing survived intact. But when it doesn’t, it’s always better and always due to an editor.
Name them!
>>>This is one of the rare instances where academia does it better. Journal articles include footnotes and acknowledgment sections where authors thank those who helped them with the paper.
Yes but NOT QUITE. One function that rarely if ever gets credited is translation and/or language review. I do that for various academic papers, the "language review" often contains a fairly substantial degree of clarification and occasionally rewriting and I don't recall a more than a very few papers I (or another translator/"language" editor) was credited in. As far as I understand, the gist here lies in the idea that a translator/language reviewer gets paid for their work kinda outside the research cycle process and that it's external to the content, and if they choose to go above and beyond pure translation in their comments that's their sort of... pro bono (pro scientia?) choice. This also relies on a naive notion of translation and transparency of language but here we are.
Also, peer reviewers are not typically credited by name as they're supposed to be anonymous, despite the amount of input they might have into the final published paper?
Should we credit ChatGPT if they edit a lot portion of our writing?
Your article reminds me that the best thing about substack is that one has no editor and the worst thing about substack is the same thing.
https://substack.com/@demianentrekin/note/c-126784995?r=dw8le
To write is human, to edit is divine.
— Stephen King
Give editors credit!!! In the case of book publishing, not giving editors credit tilts all the power to the marketing department and fewer interesting books are published.
It’s a neat idea, but it creates an accountability gap. If two people are responsible for something then, really, no one is responsible since each could blame the other. Whereas in the current system the author bears full responsibility and the editor gets neither the credit nor the blame.
I always credit my editor in both the preface and the acknowledgements. My agent also contributes valuable edits, and I thank her too. Martin Amis was known for his arrogance, but the humbler writers among us know that books are always a group effort.
As both an author and book editor myself I see the case for this. Solid argument. I've been named a few times in the acknowledgments. But that's not the same.