Re. Merits of using a tech. editor

[Geoff Hart <geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>]

 Paul Baur asked for justification for adding a technical
 editor to his group of writers (since they already have a
 peer review system in place). A few thoughts based on my
 own role as editor:

 - Peer review is rarely satisfactory among colleagues.
 There is an almost overwhelming pressure to be diplomatic
 and "let things slide", even when strong words might be
 called for, because you've got to work with the author
 after the review and the same author may take the
 opportunity to savage your own work later. Editors stand
 apart from the writing group, no matter how amicable or
 social or how hard we try to integrate, because we aren't
 competing with the writers for recognition or advancement,
 and this gives us (deservedly) more of a reputation for
 neutrality.

 - Some types of writers, oddly enough, just aren't very
 good at writing. That's not an insult... some companies
 employ trained, skilled writers to work for their
 engineers; others just hand the engineers a word processor.
 Again, no class warfare intended here: over the past 10
 years, I've noted that most research/design/techie types
 were hired first for their technical skills, and only
 secondly for their writing skills. If they can't write i
 the first place, how well can they critique someone else's
 writing? Writing, as we all know, takes considerable time,
 and even skilled engineer-writers won't produce good work
 if their priority is to do good engineering first and fit
 the writing into gaps. For this type of writer, good peer
 reviews aren't possible because of time constraints. A good
 editor has both the skill and the time to edit; writers may
 have neither.

 -

 --Geoff Hart    @8^{)}
 geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca

 Disclaimer: If I didn't commit it in print in one of our
 reports, it don't represent FERIC's opinion.