- Email: [email protected]
The “hot eye” and the “cold eye”
FROM THE EDITOR
The “Hot Eye” and the “Cold Eye” For many years I submitted manuscripts to medical journals for publication immediately after the final draft had been typed. Before the final typing I would check the manuscript carefully for accuracy, clarity and precision of meaning, conciseness of expression and for errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling. Then, when the manuscript was returned from the journal’s editor for revision after the l- to 34nonth review process, I was always surprised on reexamining the manuscript that I was almost always able to detect some minor inaccuracy or able to delete 1 or more paragraphs that now did not seem so pertinent, or more concisely describe a method, result or idea. Why could these improvements not have been accomplished before the initial submission of the manuscript? The answer, I believe, has to do with the “hot-eye”“cold-eye” concept. Before initial submission of the manuscript, 1 draft was followed by another without essentially any cooling-off period between the various manuscript drafts. The manuscript in this circumstance may be thought of as being examined with a “hot eye” (Figure). Return of the manuscript to the author after the I- to 3-month review process provides a needed cooling-off period for the authors so that now the manuscript can be reexamined with a “cold eye” (Figure). This first reexamination allows authors to identify previously unrecognized errors, unwarranted conclusions, flawed reasonings, exaggerated statements, redundancies, needless words, sentences and paragraphs, and grammatical and spelling errors. I am convinced that this cooling-off period provides such an opportunity for manuscript improvement that even manuscripts in which both reviewers and ediior have found few or no faults usually are returned to the authors for reexamination.
m
-Manuscript shelved
E!l
Fresh examination
Cold Eye aa Vision
One reason almost any editor or reviewer can find defects in the work of almost any writer, however talented, is that they view the manuscript with a “cold eye” because they have not seen it before. The cooling-off period provided for authors by the review process allows the author to review his manuscript more like an editor or reviewer-with a “cold eye.” I suspect that all of our manuscripts would be improved if we shelved them for a week or so before our final check preceding the final typing for initial submission to a medical journal.
William C. Roberts, MD Editor in Chief
The “Hot Eye” and the “Cold Eye” For many years I submitted manuscripts to medical journals for publication immediately after the final draft had been typed. Before the final typing I would check the manuscript carefully for accuracy, clarity and precision of meaning, conciseness of expression and for errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling. Then, when the manuscript was returned from the journal’s editor for revision after the l- to 34nonth review process, I was always surprised on reexamining the manuscript that I was almost always able to detect some minor inaccuracy or able to delete 1 or more paragraphs that now did not seem so pertinent, or more concisely describe a method, result or idea. Why could these improvements not have been accomplished before the initial submission of the manuscript? The answer, I believe, has to do with the “hot-eye”“cold-eye” concept. Before initial submission of the manuscript, 1 draft was followed by another without essentially any cooling-off period between the various manuscript drafts. The manuscript in this circumstance may be thought of as being examined with a “hot eye” (Figure). Return of the manuscript to the author after the I- to 3-month review process provides a needed cooling-off period for the authors so that now the manuscript can be reexamined with a “cold eye” (Figure). This first reexamination allows authors to identify previously unrecognized errors, unwarranted conclusions, flawed reasonings, exaggerated statements, redundancies, needless words, sentences and paragraphs, and grammatical and spelling errors. I am convinced that this cooling-off period provides such an opportunity for manuscript improvement that even manuscripts in which both reviewers and ediior have found few or no faults usually are returned to the authors for reexamination.
m
-Manuscript shelved
E!l
Fresh examination
Cold Eye aa Vision
One reason almost any editor or reviewer can find defects in the work of almost any writer, however talented, is that they view the manuscript with a “cold eye” because they have not seen it before. The cooling-off period provided for authors by the review process allows the author to review his manuscript more like an editor or reviewer-with a “cold eye.” I suspect that all of our manuscripts would be improved if we shelved them for a week or so before our final check preceding the final typing for initial submission to a medical journal.
William C. Roberts, MD Editor in Chief