Guide to Accessible Writing

By JoEllen McBride

1. The magazine publishes pieces from a number of different political perspectives and so editors are not supposed to try to engage in argument with the content of a piece, rather to make sure that the author has made their point as well as they can. If you are concerned that the piece is not fitting with the mission of the magazine discuss this with your editorial collective. 2. SftP publishes for a number of different audiences including scientists who are newly politicising, academics from various fields, activists from different places in the world and from different political traditions. We do not intend to “dumb down” the content of the magazine so that every piece is easily accessible to every reader, however, given the breadth of our intended readership, it is fair to encourage authors to footnote rather extensively even for points or claims that they might consider rudimentary in their given domain. So for example, scientists might point to good reviews of the basics of a given topic that a non-specialist might use to familiarise themselves. Or, activists who might be used to assuming familiarity with a certain set of political concepts could point to their favorite primer on those concepts. And so on.

3. Our authors are typically busy people (as we all are in this world) who are doing this work out of a political conviction. We all want to do the best work we can because we’re all contributing to a common political project and so it is fine to offer thorough criticism and feedback in the hopes of bringing out the best in a piece. However, it is important to make sure this is done in a fair, thoughtful, comradely manner and that it is made clear to the author that we greatly value their work. Most authors will be very appreciative of attentive editing work so long as it is coming from a place of solidarity and good faith. Similarly, our editors, including you, are volunteers. While we try to keep to deadlines and be as professional as possible, it is important that we all recognize the volunteer nature of each others work, by trying to be prompt and kind to one another in order to make our work easier, but also by feeling comfortable to communicate that we are pressed for time, might need to extend an editing deadline, or might need to find help with our work. 4. Email the author. In the first email thank them for their contribution and give the following pieces of feedback:

i. A quick comment on whether the tone and content of the piece are appropriate for the current issue and an indication of the level of revision that you think is required.

ii. Next give a bullet point summary of what you take the argument of the piece to be. This helps to make sure that you have made a good effort at understanding the content of the piece and allows the author to see quickly the extent to which they have (or have not) managed to communicate what they were trying to communicate.

iii. Next summarize in a few points any major revisions you think are required. These should be at the level of the overall structure of the piece and should expand on any ambiguities or other difficulties that became apparent in your attempt to understand and summarize the piece.

iv. Finally indicate to the author the next steps. If you have asked for any significant editing, do this in a friendly tone, and invite them to ask any questions they may have. Let them know that you may have added further comments on the google document itself alongside the more major points contained in this email.

5. When you get a draft, read the piece through at a normal reading pace. During this first read just note the overall tone of the piece; its basic thrust; whether the argument seems clear or whether you are confused; if you cannot follow note whether this is because the language seems unclear, arguments incomplete, writing not polished, or whether it might be because the argument or discussion is just complex.

6. Read the piece through again, but more slowly this time. On this second reading take concise notes where you try to distill the structure of the piece (how many sections, their relation to each other, etc) and the arguments or sequence of points the piece is making, as well as how these relate to the structure.

7. Read the piece one more time, commenting on unclear language, asking for clarification, suggesting footnotes, and so on.