=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 7, no. 52 (21 February 2002) Editorial mailing list (digest version) Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A [2sd] So is it Mom or Mum? [Offshoot of [2sc] So is it Mondy or Tuesday?] FYI [3gw] Acromed: A biomedical acronym database server Business matters [4fo] Membership of the SfEP [8] Administration =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2]-- Q & A -------------------------------------------------- ** [2sd] So is it Mom or Mum? [Offshoot of [2sc] So is it Mondy or Tuesday?] Date: Thurs, 14 Feb 2002 From: Mary Ellen Osowski, maryellen.osowski@curriculumassociates.com David King wrote: > In the U.K. we spell it MUM and say MUM. I always wondered why > the Americans spelt it MOM -- looks so awkward to pronounce. Well, "mother" is not spelled "muther", so why not "mother" to "mom"? ---[3]-- FYI ---------------------------------------------------- ** [3gw] Acromed: A biomedical acronym database server Date: Thurs, 21 Feb 2002 From: Rod Cuff, rod@wordandweb.co.uk [Cross-posted from SFEPline] Prof. Brent Cochran of the Department of Physiology at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston has sent the following announcement, which will be of interest to anyone working with biomedical material: "We are pleased to announce the release of AcroMed 1.0. AcroMed is a computer generated database of biomedical acronyms and the associated long forms extracted from the last year of Medline abstracts (2001). AcroMed contains over 120,000 biomedical acronyms with their definitions. We believe this to be the largest and most current database of its kind. "The AcroMed database is searchable by either the acronym or the associated long form. Each acronym is linked to the abstracts in which it was discovered, and the long forms can be submitted directly to PubMed as searches by a single click. AcroMed is a part of the Medstract Project whose goal is to apply natural language processing technologies to extraction of knowledge from biomedical texts. It can be accessed at < http://medstract.org > A direct link to the AcroMed database is < http://medstract.org/acro1.0/main3.htm > ---[4]-- Business matters --------------------------------------- ** [4fo] Membership of the SfEP Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 From: Colette Holden, colette@cooinda.freeserve.co.uk Are any of you members of the SFEP? If so, would you recommend membership (for freelances)? Do you find you get most of your work from your entry in the SFEP directory? ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 21 Feb 2002 From: Michele Clarke, Michele.Clarke@btinternet.com When we set up the SFEP about 14 years ago we thought there were many freelances needing a society for mutual help and training. How right we were, and in the intervening years, many inhouse editors have joined us as the industry 'downsized'. We are now the Society for Editors and Proofreaders and include many 'real' inhouse editors. We provide training, up to date information on all sorts of editing queries, and the SfEP year offers a conference, local meetings, online discussion groups, an award winning newsletter and, of course, the famous Directory, hard copy and online. How can you afford to join?! :) ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 21 Feb 2002 From: Michael Lewis, mlewis@brandle.com.au But... sorta depends on geography, dunnit? (I'm thinking seriously about joining the SFEP list -- though I doubt that I can afford yet another source of interesting e-mails! -- but I don't envisage a lot of work coming my way down at the wrong end of the planet...) ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 21 Feb 2002 From: Kathleen Lyle, edserve@klyle.demon.co.uk Michael Lewis writes > But... sorta depends on geography, dunnit? Yes and no -we have an increasing number of members outside the UK > (I'm thinking seriously about joining the SFEP list Just to clarify - you can't join the list without becoming a member of the society. > but I don't envisage a lot of work coming my way down at the > wrong end of the planet...) I'm not so sure - a lot of us now receive and return material electronically so geographic location is not as important as it used to be. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 21 Feb 2002 From: Anne Brown, annebrown@rayshill.com Michael Lewis wrote: > -- but I don't envisage a lot of work coming my way down at > the wrong end of the planet...) I am increasingly finding that work is being supplied via e-mail, often without any hard copy at all, so you might as well be in Sydney as Cricklewood! On the work supply front, I think the majority of my new clients have approached me solely as a result of membership of the SfEP and my entry in the Directory. Other responses from SfEP members include: Allan Rostron wrote: "This is an attractive prospect. Can I ask what sort of clients are sending work out electronically with no hard copy? I have had a couple of smallish paperless jobs in the last 2 years, but in much of my work (nearly all on academic journals) I have to incorporate amendments written by scientific editors on hard copy. ....." To which Nancy Boston replied: "Springer-Verlag Heidelberg send me all their work (journal papers for onscreen editing) electronically (I pick each job up from their server by ftp (file transfer protocol) as a zip file containing an rtf file - which I work from after converting it to Word, and a pdf file - for reference) and I return the finished files the same way. Springer Tokyo are just starting to do the same. Pharmaceutical Field (a trade magazine for drug reps) sends me all their articles by email which I return the same way. The Nutrition Society emails me conference abstracts to edit. Until recently all the British Psychological Society's work was hard- copy, but I did their first on-screen job for them last week, which they sent by email. I also get electronic files (no hard copy) from my clients in Mexico, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark. Most of the books I get (for proofreading or copyediting) are still hard copy, but I have received a couple (for onscreen editing) by email and others on disks." Peter Musgrave wrote: "Most of my work is for an advertising agency, working "blind". They used to send it by fax (OK if the original had no coloured BGs, otherwise needed enlarging and fiddling before transmission), but now send PDFs, which are superb. I print them out (in colour if I deem necessary, at an extra 60p per A4) and make corrections on the pages, then phone the agency immediately to discuss them because I often stray past proofreading into slight rewording of their copy, and they always want to go to print at once. No time to think, but pays better than traditional work!" Steve Rickaby wrote: "I have never worked with paper. I've been using e-mail for work transfer since 1989. Whole books have been compiled, edited, exchanged with authors, typeset and sent to printers without ever touching paper. No probs." ---[8] Administration ------------------------------------------ EDline is a discussion list about editorial and business matters for members of the publishing community. It focuses on issues of interest to professional editors, proofreaders, typesetters, writers and those in associated jobs. To post to the mailing list via Topica, use the following address: EDline@topica.com For digest subscribers, please post your EDline messages to: bywater@ntlworld.com * Accented characters: When writing accented characters, please adopt the following convention to show the accent after the character: / acute \ grave ^ circumflex ~ tilde " umlaut/diaeresis , cedilla % o slash aa a ring sz German double s | long s _ line above letter * Homepage and back issues: Visit the Electric Editors at: < http://www.electriceditors.net/ > Archives of the EDline automated discussions can be found at: < http://www.topica.com/lists/edline > All messages contributed to EDline, whether automated or digest versions, are archived on the Electric Editors' Website. These archives can be found at: < http://www.electriceditors.net/edline/ > --------- ** The views expressed in this mailing list are strictly those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the moderators or of the Electric Editors. ** Articles (c) 2001, 2002, by individual contributors Design (c) 1996--2002 Iain Brown Compilation (c) 2002, Iain Brown / The Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= END OF EDline 7.52 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=