Hiring an editor to meet the requirements of academic advancement and publication involves ethical issues that all authors should devote some thought to. I was reminded of this recently when a friend wondered aloud whether it would be ethical to have me edit an academic paper for her. Would my edit give her paper an unfair edge over others being submitted to the same journal? Would it be deceptive for her to claim the work as fully hers if I helped her to revise certain passages or even rethink aspects of her thesis and argumentation? A New York Times Magazine piece offers some perspective on this topic:
One of the contributors to the New York Times piece raises what for me is a crucial point. When thinking about the kind of help you are seeking from an editor and what you will be doing with the resulting manuscript, the central question should never be whether you are doing what everyone else is doing. That line of thinking can easily lead to unethical behavior (e.g., stretching the truth on a résumé or curriculum vitae because “everyone does it”). The main issue should be whether you are using legitimate means to present and communicate your content in the most effective manner possible.
When you have someone edit an academic paper for you, what is the best analogy for the editor’s role: a parent helping a child with homework, an online agency that writes papers to order, or a peer reviewer suggesting revisions?
As I see it, an edit that cleans up prose and makes suggestions for revisions and organizational improvement most closely resembles a thorough peer review. In other words, it is fully legitimate. In fact, academic practice encourages this kind of input: I often have authors approach me because their dissertation advisers have asked them to have their manuscripts edited. Committees can more effectively evaluate the content and argumentation of a thesis once the distractions of errors and poor organization have been eliminated. In the case of academic journals, part of the rationale behind peer review is to allow authors to address problems with the way the research is presented. If the writing fails to meet the journal or publisher’s standards, authors are often given a chance to recast, reorganize, and strengthen the way their texts are written and argued. One of the reasons for granting authors this opportunity is to ensure that important research—the content—sees the light of day. Advice and suggestions from peers and colleagues are not only legitimate but part of an essential dialogue within academic fields; as generalists who understand the basic requirements of research and can assist in its presentation, editors have a legitimate role in this process. Their efforts are an extension of the overall goal of getting ideas and arguments across and thereby disseminating knowledge.
Two caveats come to mind. One concerns revision, in which the editor’s role can become tricky. The term ghostwriting denotes editing that crosses into the realm of writing or rewriting parts or all of a manuscript on behalf of the official author. This is a fairly common practice with a certain degree of legitimacy in commercial publishing. But in the case of scholarly writing, ghostwriting really has no legitimate role. A researcher can raise questions and even violate professional standards by engaging an editor to rewrite/revise so as to create content, formulate a thesis argument, change the writer’s voice, or map out the argumentation in a scholarly piece. However, as long as the ideas, argument, and voice of the piece are clearly those of the author, that researcher can make legitimate (and indeed, wise) use of an editor to solicit help in bringing across the content more effectively and identifying problems with the writing, thinking, and argumentation. Authors who keep in mind that they are the specialists but can use editors as a resource to help them communicate their ideas more effectively are unlikely to go beyond what is appropriate and ethical.
The second caveat has to do with having materials edited for applications and proposals. Here authors are putting themselves forward, presenting their credentials, strengths, and priorities. This is an instance in which the two most important factors are the truthfulness of the content and the impression the materials are likely to make on their audience. Because of this second factor, feedback from trusted colleagues and mentors (and if possible, from an editor) is essential. It is never wise to send out a cover letter and vita or résumé without first showing them to someone whose judgment you trust. In the case of applications, the author controls the content and is ethically responsible for observing the highest standards of integrity in presenting credentials. (For example, a book review or a talk published in a collection of proceedings should not be presented as if it were a peer-reviewed journal article.) Editors have a legitimate role to play in helping authors ensure that these materials are presented in an optimal manner. To the question of whether a well-written application may potentially mislead employers about a candidate’s language skills, my answer is that hiring committees are themselves responsible for scrutinizing candidates closely (this process extends beyond the application itself and can include publications, online information, and interviews). Candidates should always be aware that committees have access to a wide range of information about them from the Internet. Any wide discrepancies between the materials they submit and the impressions they otherwise create may ultimately hurt their candidacies.
