How to format a manuscript in a Windows text editor

July 28, 2005 9:31 AM

I have to send a manuscript in the be edited and they've asked me to mark all italicized words with an underline and all bolded words with a wavy underline. I've never sent in an ms before so I am unsure how to go about doing this. Is it possible to format a document like this in MS Word? If not, is there another program I should be using?

I've searched the archives and found a similar question asked for OSX, but it doesn't help me because I am using Windows. Thanks for all responses.

posted by ducksauce to media & arts (13 comments total)

Nope, they want you to take a "pencil," as we used to call them, and actually draw a wavy or straight line. This ought to be a copyeditor's tedious task, btw. (Well, of course you can underline via MSWord, but AFAIK there's no wavy underline command.)
posted by scratch at 9:41 AM on July 28, 2005

i don't mean to hijack this thread, because i'd be interested to hear the answer myself, but why are editors and publishers using paper in the computer age? ... why are we still submitting mss by mail when we have the internet?

aside from that, one of the things i've found frustrating about word processors is none of them seem to have a default setting for traditional, proper mss formatting for paper submissions to magazines, books, etc. ... one has to fiddle with the settings to get it right

is there a program with the proper settings?
posted by pyramid termite at 9:45 AM on July 28, 2005

MS Word 2003 for Windows allows wavy underlining.:

Menu: Format->Font

Select underline style

scroll down, at the bottom you will see two types of wavy underline, one type of double wavy underline.

You can change all italicized words to underlined words by going to:

Menu: Edit->Replace

1. Click on the "more" button on the bottom left of the dialog box.
2. Click on the "format" button on the bottom left & choose "font" from the popup menu
3. in the dialog box that pops up, choose font style: italic
4. click ok

You will see that under the imput box for "find what" it now says "italic". Do the same for the replace area, but change the formatting to underline.

This should do the trick.
posted by cahlers at 9:53 AM on July 28, 2005

cahlers, this did the trick perfectly -- except I also had to select "regular" in addition to "underline" for the replace value (otherwise italics turned into underlined italics). I am using Word 2000.

Thank you!
posted by ducksauce at 10:52 AM on July 28, 2005

pyramid termite, I wonder the same thing, and I work in publishing (editorial).

We require our authors to send mss electronically and in hard copy. The first is the version we use for inputting changes, the second is to cut down (a little) on our printing.

I, personally, do my most thorough editing on paper. This may be force of habit to a certain extent, but I’m 22, and I grew up using computers. Mostly I think it’s a difference in quality between reading something on screen, and reading on paper. First, computer screens (or at least my computer screen here at work) are not quite as comfortable to read from as is paper. The glare, the lack of sharpness, etc. Second, editing with pen is very different from typing. I hate writing long-hand--except when I’m editing. I can see with absolute clarity the difference between the change I just made and the original text. Finally, there may be a bit of a mind-trick here. Words on paper are much more tangible (and therefore more real) than are words on a screen, which makes me pay closer attention.

Regardless, when I see the numerous hard copy page proofs on my desk, I always think about what we’d save by reading one or two passes on screen. I made changes to proofs on screen at my college newspaper, but I’m really unsure of how production works here (our layout is done by outside compositors), so it’s possible that the anal compositor people don’t want us anywhere near their pristine files.

Ultimately, though, I think it comes down to the people who are still in charge at publishing houses—people in their 50s and 60s who, despite any proficiency they might have with computers (and believe me, some of them have none), still are most comfortable working with paper. Maybe by the time my generation is in charge, things will be different.

PS: All of our mss are prepared for production in MSWord, and italics, bold, etc., go through just fine (automatic footnotes, on the other hand, don’t).
posted by CiaoMela at 11:28 AM on July 28, 2005

ducksauce, before you seize on the (great) solution offered by cahlers, you should double-check with the folks doing to editing. After all, if they wanted you to format the electronic file, they would just have you use the bold and italic function already in your Word program. Scratch is more than likely correct -- they actually want you to take a pencil and mark up the ms.

I suspect that it's because they are using an older typesetting program that strips out all coding from electronic files, so that the typesetter must then hand-code new ones. After coding, the typesetter or a proofreader will check the typeset document against your hard copy. If you've marked the ms using a pencil, it makes the edits very clear for the proofreader; having to pick out the edits to make from a sea of type is just a bit harder.

This is all just a guess, though. Really, your best bet is a quick e-mail verifying that it's okay to mark up the ms using Word instead of pencil. If it really is okay with them, you should just be able to bold or ital using the normal Word functions -- why go through all the hoo-ha of devising a new mark-up system otherwise? If not, get out your eyeshade, fingerless gloves, and sharpener, and repeat "I would prefer not to" several times to set the proper mood before settling down to business.
posted by melissa may at 11:35 AM on July 28, 2005

It sounds odd to me as a computer geek, but most of the copy editors I know work on paper. Even the copy editors at one of the biggest computer magazines in the US ask for a printout of articles when they are submitted to them, then mark this up with pencils and post-its for queries, which they then give to the editor. The edit then answers them with more post-its, and the copy ed then makes the changes electronically.

I guess that old habits die hard...
posted by baggers at 12:35 PM on July 28, 2005

At the magazine I used to edit, when we layed stuff out in Adobe InDesign using word files as the copy source, InDesign would completely strip the formating of italics because it uses precision italics rather than the typographically impure stuff of Word and other riffraff programs. Unless the italicized font was lucky enough to have its own truetype italic style (and of course, any self-respecting publisher would never be caught dead using truetype), and thus appear with an error-pink highlight when placed in InDesign since InDesign wouldn't have a clue about this style that Word had apparently invented, we'd never know the italics were missing.

So as Melissa notes, this request may be aimed at ensuring that the italics and bold are preserved through the production process -- although by my example, it's equally possible that they want the underlining in the electronic copy, since we'd only sometimes remember to check the old hard copies for italics while doing the layout. Proper publishers are undoubtedly more professional and rigorous (at least half serious). Underline both copies, or call them up and find out which they want it in.
posted by kowalski at 1:13 PM on July 28, 2005

I also prefer editing on paper. However, I also remember Kennedy being shot. So there you are.
posted by languagehat at 2:01 PM on July 28, 2005

I've submitted four books to major publishers, all electronically. They have then printed them out and given them to copy editors, who (in addition to copyediting them for style, consistency, etc.) spec them for type, i.e., note italics, bold, etc. with the proper pencil marks and marginal notations. This copy is then used by the typesetter as a guide. If your publisher is not having your ms. copyedited before typesetting, they are making a big mistake.
posted by words1 at 2:17 PM on July 28, 2005

Everyone who's done much of it prefers editing on paper. It isn't an old-fuddy-duddy thing. Mostly, it's because errors are easier to miss onscreen. For some reason, I can read a document over and over on the monitor, until I think it's all correct, then find more errors after it's printed.

posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:41 PM on July 28, 2005

I am not an editor but when I write papers I prefer to print them out to scan & edit.
posted by kenko at 9:35 PM on July 28, 2005

re my previous comment, I write on a computer and submit electronically, but I would never submit anything without printing it out and reading through it multiple times over the course of several days. You'd be amazed by what you find after a day or two.
posted by words1 at 10:16 PM on July 28, 2005