=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 7, no. 60 (22 February 2002) Editorial mailing list (digest version) Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A [2sr] Contraction of 'editors' =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2]-- Q & A -------------------------------------------------- ** [2sr] Contraction of 'editors' Date: Thurs, 21 Feb 2002 From: Jane Hammett, jane.plowman@lineone.net When editing a MS for US spelling, grammar, style, etc. should the word 'editors' be contracted to 'eds' (as in the UK) or 'eds.' (with a full point afterwards)?? ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 21 Feb 2002 From: Jane Moody, JMoody@rcog.org.uk Surely it depends on the context. If you are following the 'Uniform requirements for manuscript submitted to biomedical journals', for instance, you write 'editors' in full in the reference. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 21 Feb 2002 From: John Crane, jcrane8@bellsouth.net If I had to abbreviate it, I'd use a period under the general rule to use one if the abbreviation could be confusing without it. Granted, this is stretching it, but "eds" could be taken as an initialization for, say, Eastern Dental Society, or as more than one Edward. (I assume this is in a bibliography. I would under no circumstances abbreviate "editors" in text, and I would resist doing so in a bibliography.) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= END OF EDline 7.60 Admin page: < http://www.electriceditors.net/edline/admin.htm > ** 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 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=