In addition, it is suggested that there should be a clear statement about "processing and sorting" after the third trial or "processing and sorting" after the first trial, and that social science manuscripts should be treated differently from natural science manuscripts. The author believes that some ideological and political manuscripts involving politics, military affairs, economy, culture, literature, art, religion, history and geography, as well as some primary and secondary school textbooks, must go through the third trial before they can enter the "processing and sorting" procedure. It is extremely important to check the manuscript review. If the manuscript fails to pass due to ideological and political problems and is not found in the first trial, editing and processing is a waste of time. So be sure to review the manuscript before (referring to the first three trials). "Processing and sorting" can only be carried out after the first three trials have passed. After editing and processing, this kind of manuscript needs to be re-examined and finally proofread (referring to the last three trials). But for ordinary books, such as science and technology, life, health care, popularization, popular books and so on. It is best not to force them in the order of the program. Especially for popular books such as practical life and health care, there is generally not much controversy about the choice of manuscripts. There is a small probability that the draft selection opinions in the first instance will be overturned by the second instance and the final instance. Therefore, it is considered that it can be published in the first instance, and after being approved by the editor-in-chief, it can enter the process of "processing and sorting", first, then "processing and sorting", and then review and final review. After "processing and sorting", it is helpful to improve the practicality of book editing and proofreading quality for general manuscripts. Of course, allowing a proper change in the order of reviewing natural science manuscripts does not mean that the review of such manuscripts is unimportant, nor can it be understood as simplifying the review and final review procedures. On the contrary, the three evaluations must be sound, but there is no need to divide them into three evaluations. Suggestions on universal issues like this should be reflected in the Regulations. Rules guide the editing and publishing process, so the basic flow chart is essential. The original "Regulations" lacked the flow chart of editing and publishing, which was not systematic enough. Editing norms are embodied in all stages of the editing process and can reflect the overall law of editing, so the editing process is essential. It is suggested that "concise editing and publishing flow chart" be added to the Regulations for the reference of all organs. A concise editing and publishing flow chart shall include the following contents:
Argumentation of topic selection → soliciting contributions → author's submission (manuscript is finalized, clear and neat) → preliminary review → final review (the first three reviews) → editing and processing → review → final review (the last three reviews) → publishing → one school → two schools → three schools → proofreading → printing → quality inspection of finished books → distribution → feedback from readers and authors.
In addition, it is suggested that natural science manuscripts can enter the stage of "processing and sorting" with the consent of the editorial director after they have passed the preliminary examination, and then be reviewed and finalized. The frequency and order of peer review can be properly adjusted to improve the publishing efficiency of such books, while not missing the necessary links of peer review.
To sum up, in today's publishing industry, which is gradually changing from being a "bridge between authors and readers" to "providing information services" for customers, quality is still fundamental. "Regulations" is an industry standard, which regulates the specific operation of editing and publishing process, and the fundamental purpose is to ensure the quality of books. Therefore, it is of great significance for the whole industry to attach importance to the revision of the Code.
Book quality is the embodiment of the image of a publishing house, and book quality is also the embodiment of editing ability and quality. However, the guarantee and improvement of book quality is not entirely the responsibility of the responsible editor, but a major event that the whole industry should grasp and manage, and it is also a concern of the whole society. Imagine if responsible editors had more time to calmly deal with mistakes in manuscripts, instead of rushing to publish books to seize the market; Without the pressure of economic indicators, responsible editors don't run away and produce so many varieties every year to strive for economic benefits; If a responsible editor has a little time to improve himself, enrich himself and improve his self-cultivation; If we can be stricter in the final judgment and final judgment, we will not be afraid of offending people and really play a good role in quality control; If the author can be more responsible for his own manuscript, he can improve the quality of the manuscript one step; Proofreading can be more careful; If managers can regard publishing as a cultural heritage and take social responsibility from the perspective of protecting the land, instead of desperately expanding the variety scale for economic benefits ... then the quality of books will not drop to such a serious extent.
Professor hardman of Cornell University in the United States did an experiment: put several bees in a bottle, with the bottom of the bottle facing the light, and the bees kept hitting the wall in the direction of the light, and finally stopped at the bright side and died. Then, they turned the bees into butterflies, and after a few minutes all the butterflies flew out. The reason is that butterflies make many attempts in the upward direction, downward direction, light direction and backlight direction, and change direction if one direction fails. Although it is inevitable to hit a wall many times, I finally flew to the bottleneck and blurted it out. Professor Hadamard concluded: "To try various methods to solve problems, sticking to one direction may lead to a dead end. Sometimes, it is much better to go on the rampage than to sit still. " The same is true of the quality of books. It is not enough to only grasp the problem of responsible editing, or to emphasize the problem of editing and publishing. There are many reasons and various solutions. At least from the management point of view, the Regulations put forward a universal model and method on how to effectively improve the quality of books, which should be our goal.