MICROSOFT TEXT-TO-SPEECH

A few years ago, I wrote a post on reading aloud when editing/proofreading. I recently discovered an improvement on this in the text-to-speech function in Microsoft Word and now use it for all my editing work.

 ADVANTAGES

•  I can use this feature silently with headphones, so I don’t annoy those around me.

• There’s less chance of people doubting my sanity as it doesn’t involve talking to myself. 😉

• Humans often see what they expect to see and may overlook errors when reading aloud (such as consecutive articles, e.g. “the the”). Text-to-speech avoids this problem.

 DISADVANTAGES

• I have had issues with the response to “play” and and have often had to click on this two or three times.*

• Pronunciation is often incorrect. (Its interpretation of chemical formulae can be interesting!)

• There is a choice of voices (sometimes); however, the voice occasionally changes so that it sounds like several people speaking together, which is difficult to listen to. This can usually be resolved by stopping and restarting playback.

I’d love to hear about other people’s experience with this function.

Photo credit: Toshiyuki IMAI

*18/01/19 This issue appears to have been resolved in a recent update.

TODAY'S NEW WORD - HANPEN

I learned this new word while editing today.

Hanpen is a soft fish cake made by forming ground fish flesh and starch into squares or triangles, which are then steamed. It can be eaten as it is or alternatively grilled, poached or deep-fried and dipped in soya sauce [1].
I hope to have the chance to try it one day. 😊

[1] Hanpen (2005). In C. Sinclair, Dictionary of food: international food and cooking terms from A to Z (2nd ed.). London, UK: A&C Black.

Photo credit: yoppy

GOOGLE SCHOLAR AS AN EDITING TOOL

In academic research, new words are being invented at a much faster rate than dictionaries (even online ones) can keep up with, while existing words are constantly changing their function and/or meaning.

How, then, does an editor decide whether an unfamiliar word is a misspelling or a ‘valid’ word that hasn’t yet made it into the dictionary, or whether a word that the dictionary lists as a verb can now be accepted as a noun?

As an editor, I would initially consult an online dictionary. (My personal favourites are the Oxford and  Collins dictionaries.) If my chosen word isn’t in a dictionary, I search for it in Google Scholar.

Use of Google Scholar to check words/phrases is based on the number of hits; however, incorrect words and phrases frequently return a significant number of hits, so finding a word on Google Scholar does not guarantee that it is correctly spelled; clearly, many errors pass the editing process.

Provided that there is a significant number of hits, comparing one version of a word with another based on the number of hits is a reasonably reliable way to decide which version to use. Even dictionary spellings are based on which ones are most commonly used, so this is an acceptable strategy.

For example, should “photo-caged” or “photocaged” be used in a scientific paper? (Neither is in the dictionary.) The former returns 440 hits while the latter returns 3,800. I would therefore use the latter as this is most commonly used.

Google Scholar frequently suggests corrections/improvements.
e.g. A search for the phrase “our manuscript titled” returns 101 hits, while the suggested correction, “our manuscript entitled” returns 800. (Suggested corrections do not always return more hits and may be incorrect, so should be checked with a new search.)

It should be noted that this is not a fail-safe method of ensuring correct writing; sometimes, errors outnumber correct versions. Here's an example:
The phrase “No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript” returns 528 hits. Clearly, this is incorrect and “exits” should be changed to “exists”; however, the correct phrase “No conflict of interest exists in the submission of this manuscript” returns only 214 hits - less than half the number for the incorrect phrase. This technique is therefore best combined with a good knowledge of English and the subject in question.

This is based on my own editing experience. I hope it is helpful.

TODAY'S NEW WORD - ORGANOLEPTIC

Something that is organoleptic acts on or involves using the sense organs.

TODAY'S NEW WORD - KOJI

One thing I love about editing is that I'm constantly learning. Today's new word is koji. It's made by combining a cultivated mould (usually Aspergillus oryzae) with soya, rice or other foods to produce fermented foods and drinks including miso, soy sauce and sake.

MICROSOFT 'FIND' FUNCTION AS AN EDITING TOOL

The ‘Find’ tool in Microsoft Word is invaluable for editing, as it searches for a character, word or phrase and shows how many times this occurs within a manuscript. Up and down arrows (Figure 1) within the navigation panel are used to identify all the occurrences of the search subject.

 Figure 1.

As errors in manuscripts are often repeated, I use ‘Find’ to ensure that all recurring errors are identified and corrected. Additionally, I routinely use it to search for frequently occurring errors, including misuse of ‘respectively’; missing commas before ‘which’; incorrect use of hyphens, en-dashes and minus signs; double spaces and spaces before punctuation.

Left or right brackets may be omitted. When their numbers differ, I scroll through each instance of the most frequently occurring bracket to identify the missing one(s). Where right parentheses outnumber left ones, this may be because the author has used only right parentheses to label parts of figures (e.g. ‘a)’).

With hyphenated words, ‘Find’ can be used to ensure consistency by searching for occurrences of a given word pair, first hyphenated and then unhyphenated.

When editing academic papers, I scan numbered reference citations to ensure that they are cited in numerical order. When these are enclosed in square brackets, they can be easily checked by using ‘Find’ to search for a left or right square bracket. I also use ‘Find’ to search for ‘fig’, ‘table’ and ‘scheme’, where appropriate, to check that all the graphics in a paper have been cited.

Character searches are useful for checking units when editing scientific papers, e.g. to check that spaces are present/absent between the value and the unit, depending on the unit and style requirements.

I edit documents in both British and US English, which means changing spelling and grammar that is specific to US English to the British version, and vice versa.
When editing documents in British English, searching for ‘z’ can identify many US spellings, as these tend to replace the ‘ise’ at the end of British words with ‘ize’ (e.g. neutralise/neutralize). Oxford commas (which are more commonly used in US English) can be identified, if required, by searching for ‘, and’.
When editing US English manuscripts, searching for ‘our’ identifies British spellings, since US words frequently replace ‘our’ in British spellings with ‘or’; for example, behaviour (behavior), colour (color) and favour (favor). A search for ‘ise’ also identifies British English words for which US spellings replace the ending ‘ise’ in British spellings with ‘ize’. However, some words (such as comprise) retain ‘ise’ in US English.
Words related to sulphur are spelled with ‘ph’ in British spellings and ‘f’ in the US; searching for ‘sulf’ identifies US spellings while searching for ‘sulph’ identifies British ones.

These tips are based on my own editing experience. I hope they are useful.

© Linda Watson, 2018

HAVING A WORD/WORDS

If someone asks if they can have a word with you, they would like to briefly discuss something, probably using more than one word!

However, if someone wants to have words with you, expect an argument – they are probably unhappy about something you have said or done.

WORD COUNT REDUCTION

Good academic writing should be concise. Many academic journals specify word counts for different types of papers. Particularly, abstracts are frequently restricted to 150–250 words. This post offers a few tips for reducing your word count without losing content.

Nouns can often be used as adjectives (see earlier post); however, be aware that a few journals forbid this. (Check the author guidelines/instructions for your chosen journal.)

Words and phrases that contribute no information to the text (sometimes called filler words) can be deleted. These include:
actually;
etc.;
and so on;
indeed;
in order to (change to "to");
is located in (remove "located");
it was found that;
some;
the existence of.

Phrases can often be replaced with a single word or a shorter phrase (shown in brackets); for instance,
a lot of (many);
as a result (consequently);
at the same time (simultaneously);
a variety of (various);
carried out (performed or conducted);
has/have been (can sometimes be replaced with was/were);
in addition (additionally);
in general (generally);
in length (long);
in particular (particularly);
in the case of (for);
is still (remains);
need(s) to (must);
on the basis of (based on);
on the other hand (however);
point of view (viewpoint);
take place (occur).

Where the word "again" follows a verb, it can sometimes be deleted and the verb preceded with re-; e.g. "modified again" can be replaced with "remodified".

The words "colour" or "coloured" are unnecessary if the colour is specified; e.g. "blue crystals" rather than "blue-coloured crystals".

Where the word "not" precedes an adjective, both words can sometimes be replaced with a single word; e.g. "unnecessary" rather than "not necessary".

I hope this is helpful. The above points are based on my own editing experience.

ACADEMIC WRITING: USING NOUNS AS ADJECTIVES

When a noun is used as an adjective, it should (almost) always be singular, e.g. "metal-modified" rather than "metals-modified" and "electrode-based" rather than "electrodes-based".


Exceptions are:

• materials science – Although the Oxford Dictionary includes both "material science" and "materials science", the latter is more commonly used in scientific writing.
• use of "data" and "media" as adjectives, e.g. "data acquisition" and "media company". [1]
• clothes (clothes hanger), sports (sports bag), customs (customs office), accounts (accounts book), arms (arms store) [2]

If you are unsure whether a plural or singular noun should be used as an adjective, you can use Google Scholar to check this. For example, a search for "nanoparticle arrays" gives 26,000 results, while a search for "nanoparticles arrays" gives 1,200.

Using nouns as adjectives can improve the flow of your writing and also reduces the word count; for instance, "reaction product" (2 words) is more concise than "product of the reaction" (4 words).

It should be noted, however, that some publishers do not like nouns to be used as adjectives [3], so it is best to consult the author guidelines for your chosen journal before writing your paper.

ALWAYS READ ALOUD

As an editor, I find that reading documents aloud helps me to spot mistakes; errors in grammar generally spoil the flow of the text, so reading aloud makes them stand out. (Fortunately, I work from home, so only my family hears me talking to myself. 😊)


The saying "there is nothing new under the sun" comes from the book of Ecclesiastes (1:9), and it is true. Reading aloud was something I worked out for myself 'on the job', but I've since found many articles advising proofreaders (and others whose work is concerned with English grammar) to read work aloud. Here are just a few examples:

To help develop an instinctive feel for the flow of a sentence, try reading it aloud and insert a comma when you pause . . .

(Let’s eat Grandma! How to use, and not use the comma, David Marsh, The Guardian)

Even if you’re just whispering away at your desk, reading aloud is a great way to find and spot mistakes, especially missing punctuation or repeated words.

(3 Things You Should Do When Speed Proofreading, Grammarly)

Read aloud - small errors of expression and punctuation are more likely to become obvious if you read aloud.

(Effective proof reading, University of Reading)

. . . when you read out loud, you can't help but stumble over typos and missing words.

(My Favorite Editing Tip: Read it Aloud, Kate Kiefer Lee)