This is a strange question for a discussion board, but here goes. I had written an article, and the editors changed the verb in the first sentence from "This article presents the case for developing a national standardized program, implemented through regulation, for transitioning all newly licensed nursing graduates to practice." to "This article discusses the importance of...."
The change didn't sound right to me because I think of "discuss" as being verbal and not written. However, when I looked it up, I see I am wrong. One definition is: "to consider or examine by argument, comment, etc.; talk over or write about, esp. to explore solutions; debate: to discuss the proposed law on taxes."
So I see technically I am wrong in objecting. What are your thoughts?
By the way, I think the article does a much better job of presenting the case than it does of merely discussing the importance, so I also think they changed the intent. However, with this group, I have bigger fish to fry.
In my opinion it's a substantial change of meaning. "Presents the case for" means that it is coming from a specific point of view in favour of an option. "Discusses the importance of" means present both sides of the debate from a neutral point of view.
The verbal/written distinction is, I think, a bit of a red herring.
Either way, unless there were any other big changes I wouldn't be overly concerned about it.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
I'm with Bob on the change of meaning. I wonder if the editors were trying to give the article some impression of impartiality? Also, the use of the word "case" in your original indicates that you are proposing a change. The change to "importance" simply tends to show that you feel the matter is important, but not necessarily important enough to bring in changes.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
My only change would have been to add "ly" to "national," making it "nationally standardized..." I see nothing wrong with your original otherwise.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Geoff,
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. -J. Krishnamurti
The article definitely takes a point of view, and, no, we don't present both sides. That's why originally I had written it as making the case. In the very first draft, I had written "compelling case," but they really didn't like that, and I could understand that. Let the reader decide if it's compelling.
Bob, I am not sure what you mean about the verbal/written distinction being a red herring. By the way, here is a nice analysis of the etymology of red herring.
If the article doesn't present both sides then discusses the importance of is misleading and dishonest. It should be changed back to presents the case for.
Bob, I am not sure what you mean about the verbal/written distinction being a red herring.
What I meant was that discussion of the meaning of "discuss", while interesting, is a diversion here. It's distracting attention from the fact that the change of wording has led to a change of meaning. I wasn't going to put it as strongly as tinman has, but I agree with him.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure. I agree completely. I don't like it, and it's the very beginning of the article.
Here is another battle I've lost; this is the sentence they are insisting on: "Orsolini-Hain and Malone (2007) predict the perfect storm where the overall level of nursing experience declines as seasoned nurses retire and the ratio of new graduates to experienced nurses increases, creating an expertise gap." To me, this is a prediction. I've asked them to change it to: "Orsolini-Hain and Malone (2007) predict the perfect storm where the overall level of nursing experience will decline as seasoned nurses retire and the ratio of new graduates to experienced nurses will increase, creating an expertise gap." They say my way is incorrect.
[edited for clarity]This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,
I suppose your way is technically correct; however, their way is also OK in my view. I wouldn't say it's an issue.
If you have your doubts about the accuracy of the predictions, and you want to indicate your uncertainty, you could use would and could in place of will.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
