Chapter 04: Developing a New Editorial Perspective for Scientific Publications
Files
Description
Mr. Pagel begins this Chapter by speaking briefly about some changes he tried to make to the General Report. He then covers two main policy changes he instituted during his role as Publications Coordinator (’78 – ’84) and Director (’84 – present). The first was to regularize the pace of editing manuscripts, previously determined by the editorial staff. He worked with staff to reorganize this process so editing could be done more quickly and efficiently. Mr. Pagel speaks briefly with the Interviewer about how editors specialize in different subject areas, but the challenges of editing scientific papers come down to a core set of basic issues. He then explains that prior to the 90s, faculty were required to submit manuscripts to Scientific Publications for editing help (whether they wanted/needed it or not). During the 90s, however, Scientific Publications was inundated with article manuscripts as well as grant proposals, and they switched from a mandatory to voluntary system to better serve those who actually wanted help. Mr. Pagel also talks about the challenges of marketing the services Scientific Publications offers within MD Anderson. One challenge, he points out, is that even though journals provide very poor editing services, researchers often question whether non-scientists (i.e, the editors in Scientific Publications) can truly help them with their articles.
Identifier
PagelW_01_20120801_C04
Publication Date
8-1-2012
Publisher
The Making Cancer History® Voices Oral History Collection, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
City
Houston, Texas
Interview Session
Walter Pagel, ELS (D), Oral History Interview, August 01, 2012
Topics Covered
The Interview Subject's Story - The AdministratorInstitutional Processes Definitions, Explanations, Translations Building/Transforming the Institution Professional Practice The Professional at Work
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
Disciplines
History of Science, Technology, and Medicine | Oncology | Oral History
Transcript
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
I also wanted to ask you about some of those projects. You said that you—Dorothy told you, basically, to go off and do some projects. And I’m curious, what were some of the projects that you at Scientific Publications began to initiate on your own? Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
Well, the one thing that I recall that I didn’t do so well on was I had this idea that this general report thing that we did, this collection of reports from the various departments, was dull and boring and nobody wanted to read it. And so let’s invent a report that had themes and collect things based on these themes. Get people to write things or write them yourself, whatever. Get pictures that related to it, make it interesting.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Uh-hunh (affirmative). Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
Well, it turns out that something like that is a lot of work. There’s a reason why things are boring, and you have very clear lines of authority, and you know who the heck’s going to like what, and you don’t care what it is. It’s because it’s very hard to get a big group of people to do something. And so I had—it took me forever to do whatever it is I did, and it wasn’t all that great.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
So back to the boring reports after that? Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
Yeah, pretty much.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Yeah? Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
Or even dumped it. We may have dropped it in favor of something Public Affairs was doing, which was perhaps a little more interesting. So we stuck to the research report, which was a collection of reports from the laboratories about the research programs. So I didn’t—I don’t mean each project—I think I just got assigned stuff that wasn’t doing so well. I don’t even remember what they were, and it was my job to pull them out. It wasn’t that hard, really.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Uh-hunh (affirmative). What about your shift into publications coordinator in ’78 to ’84? Was that a substantial shift in responsibility? Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
I began to take responsibility for other people’s success and for interviewing people and interviewing candidates and helping shape policies in the department with Dorothy.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Do you recall some of the policy decisions that were being made at the time? Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
Well, I don’t know if it was when I was coordinator—or—what was the next job?
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
I was wondering because I was unsure of when you actually became assistant director. Because it sounded like you might have dovetailed— Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
Maybe it was the same thing. Maybe I got confused. They’re not much different, whatever it was.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Okay. Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
It may just have been a change it title, truthfully.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Right. Yeah. Because it says you were publications coordinator until ’84, and then it says ’84 to present you were director. So that’s why I was wondering. Maybe they were— Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
They’re probably essentially just a payroll title change. So what was the question?
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
I was just asking about the change in responsibility, and if there were policy decisions that you were involved in during that time. Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
Huh. I can see that certain things weren’t getting done the way the faculty wanted them done.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Such as? Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
Well, mainly manuscripts were edited at a pace that was up to the editors, and it could be quickly or slowly, and it didn’t seem anybody much cared, except I knew the faculty cared. And so I proposed and she agreed that we systematize and work harder at getting things done—those things done quickly. Because everybody wanted to do the more glamorous things, like edit books. At the time, editing books was more glamorous. And it’s—you know—it’s a project. You start here on one day, and three months later you’re finished here, whereas manuscripts are being reviewed all day long. Every day you got another manuscript to edit. And that’s, for most people, not as much fun. So those tended to fall to the wayside.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
This would be kind of a side question, but I’m curious about—mentally and intellectually, what is it like to start on a manuscript that may be in a certain topic area, and then switch, maybe two hours later, to a manuscript on a totally different topic area. Do you find that it’s taken you a long time to master a lot of scientific terminology or basic themes in the different specialties in order to do this kind of work? Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
First of all, I think that an editor who knows how to edit can edit anything and bring a lot that the author thinks, when you’re finished thinking of the subject, which is not true. What you know is that the readers have certain expectations in a story, and the author has set you up for something and then failed to deliver. And so you can—they can be stunned that you would know that this is what the next thing they should be telling, but really, it’s not that you know this field. It’s that you know what readers expect. On the other hand, it’s also true that if you know a subject well, you can provide—you can be more incisive somehow or other. You can more quickly recognize that they’re failing to deliver either for their particular audience, and that’s a tough one. It’s easier to recognize when it’s a big audience what kind of questions need to be answered. It’s harder when they’re mostly writing for their peers. And that takes—you can’t switch around— What am I trying to say here? You can only have command of a few fields like that. I think I’m answering your question, believe it or not.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
No, you are. You are. What are your particular fields that you feel you have good command over when it comes to that specific work? Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
Well, it’s more basic sciences, truthfully. I mean, I have an undergraduate experience in basic science, and even though none of that knowledge is current, it means nothing. The knowledge itself means nothing, the working in that area, understanding how people demonstrate things indirectly and how they measure things and how this really means that helps me understand what they should be describing. How this is—what they just told me is not good enough—that they’ve used adjectives when there are numbers available to them and they should be using numbers, and so on and so forth. There are many people here who are much better at the clinical style, although I would say I was once pretty good at it, but I have done less and less of that over the years. Lost a little bit of my touch in that area. But again, in every case it’s a story that we should be looking for and that if you just stay focused on what the reader’s needs are, you can switch around between subjects without a great deal of difficulty. Now, you’re exaggerating how quickly, how much you have to switch. We’re not editing anything in two hours and so it might be, at best, the next day, but more likely in the next couple of days.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
I was just curious because—I mean, I’m personalizing it a little bit, but I know how it’s been for me to prepare for a lot of these interviews. One of my first interviews, [Isaiah] Josh Fidler [DVM, PH.D. [Oral History Interview]], it’s like learning a foreign language. You can learn how to ask a question, but do understand enough to understand the answer so you can continue the conversation? And then I have to turn around and interview Margaret Kripke, and it’s photoimmunology. So there’s—okay, it’s kind of getting these different language bases, and it’s a little jarring to go back and forth, and it’s like, okay, when am I speaking which language, and how do I maneuver that? So that’s why I asked. Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
Yeah. I can see that the challenge for you would be huge in that way, and I can also imagine that, in fact, number one, you’re over-preparing. You probably don’t need to prepare quite as much as what you need to be. For somebody like Josh, there is no over-preparing.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Exactly. Yeah. I mean, it’s— Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
Margaret probably would have let you get by with quite a few mistakes. She wouldn’t have cared because she understands. And Josh would let you get by with none. He’d call you an idiot if you didn’t know his— “Who sent that idiot over here?” (laughs).
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
So would Frederick Becker [MD [Oral History Interview]]. (laughs). No, no. But people like to talk to you, which is delightful, and I’m sure you’re—well, I’m a personality that over-prepares. But I also just know from my own writing that switching between projects sometimes can be—it’s a— Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
Well, writing’s tougher, come on!
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Yeah, it is tough. It’s tough. Absolutely. And you’re working with people’s words. And when you’re editing and you have to kind of enter into their thought process and think about how to manage that so it’s also a communicative act on the other end. So yeah, that’s what I— Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
But I don’t enter into the author’s thought process. That’s not what I’m worried about. Because if I did that, I’m going to overlook stuff that matters to the reader.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
To the reader. Yeah. Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
And we’ll say, “Oh that’s what he means.” Well, I don’t care if I can figure out what he means. What I care about is whether the reader can figure out what he means when he wants to. Does he have to reread that sentence in order to get it? If he does, then you’ve screwed up. I know that screwed up is kind of an exaggeration, but you make it harder on the reader, for sure. And readers are intolerant of that sort of thing, especially in grant proposals.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Yeah. Well, I imagine increasingly so, too. People’s attention spans and expectations have—I mean, attention spans have shortened and expectations have gone up. Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
Well, grant readers have twenty to read in like two weeks.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
That’s right. Right. Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
Probably exaggerating.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
How receptive are faculty, do you find? And also, have there been changes? I mean, when you began working with people, the faculty in the ‘70s, was there a different type of feeling in relationship with you as editor than there would be with editors today? Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
Well, for sure, in the sense that editing is now completely voluntary, whereas then it was mandatory. What wasn’t mandatory was paying attention to what we did. So that could be discouraging to an editor, to realize, well—we still don’t know what we did, but we know that they asked for our help. They wanted our help, decided they needed our help, whereas in the mandatory days, they didn’t have a choice.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Now, you mentioned earlier that you were responsible for making that change. When did that happen, and why did you make that decision? Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
I made it when faculty began to clamor for grant editing help, and we just didn’t have the capacity to do it. So although it should have been a philosophical choice, it was actually a workload choice. We’re glad that it was more or less forced on us, but I proposed that in order to do this, we stop doing this, which is editing manuscripts of people who didn’t want us to.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Which only makes the process more difficult, too. Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
Or they just don’t care. You’re sitting there working away like a crazy man, and they just toss it in the can, you know? Why not? I don’t want this.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Right. When did that shift take place? Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
I’m thinking it was like ’84 or ’85.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
So that was pretty quickly after you became director. Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
Yeah. Maybe. I may have the date wrong.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Why? Would you rather it not be when you were director? (laughs). I’m sorry. Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
Well, I don’t think I did it that quickly. I think it took me longer than that. So it might be more like ’90, I believe. I can’t remember. I could probably figure it out if it’s important.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Yeah. Well, there’ll be a chance for you to have a look at the transcript and add a date if you need to add a date. I’m just curious when that came around. At the time, do you recall how many editors you had on staff when that clamoring started? And I guess there’s another piece of that question, because here you have all these faculty clamoring. You have not enough staff to satisfy, but then there’s also the issue of what was happening with funding outside the institution, that meant grants were suddenly so important. Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
I don’t think funding was that tough in those days. Probably more in the low twenty percent range, whereas now it’s below ten. That was a—I don’t know what question to answer.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
I know. I’m sorry. I tend to ask convoluted—how many people were on staff at the time, when you made the decision? Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
I think there were like ten or twelve editors.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Yeah, okay. Okay. And then the other part of the question was, what was going on that made faculty suddenly be asking so much for help with grant writing? Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
I’d like to think it is that they saw what we could do on manuscripts and grants were even more important to them. I couldn’t tell you what the truth is. And many faculty don’t finish grants until the last minute, until they can’t use us anyway. But we did do about 250 a year now. Sometimes we only have a day and sometimes we have a week. And to me, the people who give us a day don’t really want us, except to make sure they haven’t made gross mistakes.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
So you alluded to the fact a few times that you kind of have to convince the faculty that what you do is important. Or you have to ring the bell, like, we’re here. We’re available. We can do something for you. What’s that self-promotion—why does that have to happen, and how do you do that? Mr.
Walter Pagel, ELS (D):
Well, it has to happen for a couple of reasons. I’d say the main one is that the—well, a lot of reasons. Faculty are smart people, and often their writing is their ego, right? So we are not the determining people. We’re not the ones who decide whether they get into a journal or not. The kind of editing that goes on in journals today is mediocre at best. So the models of what an editor does are really, really poor out there. So if you don’t already have experience with us, you might think that we do what they did. So what’s the point? There is none. You don’t need that kind of editing. And we’re not—for the most part, we’re not scientists. And the first thought of the scientist is, how can somebody who’s not a scientist help me? And we can’t help them with their science. That’s their problem. But we can help them describe their science. So I think—we do mailings and things to the faculty and so on, and they don’t—most of them don’t remember until there is time for the paper that we even exist. And so there are groups of people here who don’t know about us. Not because they haven’t been told, but because they didn’t pay attention when they were. Because they already dismissed the editors or because they’ve just been told thirty other things. Which one are they supposed to remember? But we believe and expect that their colleagues who have used us will say, “You know, why don’t you give Sci Pubs a try? They can help.” So there’s probably a lot of word of mouth there. Why do we have to convince them to use a free service that should make their work better? I don’t really know other than the sort of things I’ve said.
Recommended Citation
Pagel, Walter ELS and Rosolowski, Tacey A. PhD, "Chapter 04: Developing a New Editorial Perspective for Scientific Publications" (2012). Interview Chapters. 1273.
https://openworks.mdanderson.org/mchv_interviewchapters/1273
Conditions Governing Access
Open
