THE SURVEY PUBLICATION PROCESS 

w HEN YOU AS AUTHOR submit a finished 

manuscript for review, only the first step has 

been taken in a long process that transforms raw 

field, laboratory, and other research data into finished 

scientific reports. Such reports are available to the 

public on the authority of the Director of the Survey, 

whose approval is required before any Survey publication can be released. All reports resulting from the 

official work of Survey employees, moreover, must be 

approved by the Director before release, whether published within the Survey or elsewhere. As a practical 

matter, the Director delegates responsibility for 

approval to the Office of Scientific Publications. 

New ways are constantly being explored to reduce 

the time between submittal of manuscripts and release of printed reports. Automated word processing 

has greatly facilitated manuscript preparation, and 

promising new techniques of computer-generated 

cartography will drastically alter map-making procedures, but technological advances in processing are 

balanced against increasing publication loads. Many 

factors may alter scheduling-changed priorities, new 

programs and projects, mandates from high administrative levels, reorganizations, reassignments of 

responsible individuals, failures by individuals to set 

and enforce attainable deadlines, changed appropriations or allotments, and unforeseen geologic contingencies (a volcanic eruption, for example, or a 

catastrophic earthquake). 

The national atlas of the United States, 1970: Washington, D.C., 

U.S. Geological Survey, 417 p. 

National Geographic atlas of the world (5th ed.), 1981: Washington, 

D.C., National Geographic Society, 383 p. 

The Times atlas of the world, 1980: New York, Times Books, 

227 p. 

Webster's new geographical dictionary (revised ed.), 1984: 

Springfield, Mass., Merriam Webster, 1,376 p. 

The American Heritage dictionary, second college edition, 1982: 

New York, Houghton Mifflin, 1,586 p. 

Webster's third new international dictionary of the English 

language unabridged, 1981: Springfield, Mass., Merriam 

Webster, 2,262 p. 

Webster's ninth new collegiate dictionary, 1983: Springfield, Mass. 

Merriam Webster, 1,563 p. 

Bishop, C.T., 1984, How to edit a scientific journal: Philadelphia, 

IS1 Press, 138 p. 

DeBakey, Lois, 1976, The scientific journal; editorial policies and 

practices; guidelines for editors, reviewers, and authors: St. 

Louis, Mo., C.C. Mosby Company, 129 p. 

Judd, Karen, 1982, Copyediting, a practical guide: Los Altos, Calif., 

William Kaufmann, Inc., 287 p. 

Malde, H.E., 1986, Guidelines for reviewers of geological 

manuscripts: Alexandria, Va., American Geological Institute, 

28 p. 

O'Connor, Maeve, 1979, The scientist as editor; guidelines for 

editors of books and journals: New York, John Wiley & Sons, 

218 p. 

Plotnik, Arthur, 1982, The elements of editing; a modern guide for 

editors and journalists: New York, Macrnillan, 156 p. 

All science writers, critics, and editors are likely to 

have specialized reference books close at hand for 

their special needs. Additional, more general reference books should be readily accessible also, some 

closer at hand than others. The books listed here 

without comment are only a few of the many widely 

available, excellent general references related to 

technical writing. This list was generated largely by 

Malde (1986) and Cochran and Marsh (1986). Most 

books listed rate at least three stars out of a possible 

four, but their listing does not constitute special 

endorsement by STA. 

Bernstein, T.M., 1965, The careful writer; a modem guide to 

English usage: New York, Atheneum, 487 p. 

Follett, Wilson, 1974, Modern American usage; edited and completed by Jacques Barzun in collaboration with Carlos Baker 

and others: New York, Warner Paperback Library, 528 p. 

Fowler, H.W., 1965, A dictionary of modem English usage (2d ed.: 

revised by Sir Ernest Gowers): New York, Oxford, Oxford 

University Press, 725 p. 

Freeman, M.S., 1983, A treasury for word lovers; with a fmord 

by Edwin Newrnan: Philadelphia, IS1 Press, 333 p. 

Gordon, K.E., 1984, The transitive vampire: New York, Times 

Books, 144 p. 

Hi, Mary, and Cochran, Wendell, 1977, Into print; a practical 

guide to writing, illustrating, and publishing: Los Altos, Calif., 

William Kaufmann, 175 p. 

4 The Survey publication process 
Johnson, E.D., 1983, The Washington Square Press handbook of 

good English: New York, Washington Square Press, 309 p. 

Strunk, William, Jr., 1979, The elements of style; with revisions, 

an introduction, and a chapter on writing by E.B. White (3d 

ed.): New York, Macmillan, 85 p. 

Bates, R.L., and Jackson, J.A., eds., 1987, The glossary of geology 

(3d ed.): Alexandria, Va., American Geological Institute, 788 p. 

U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1968, Dictionary of mining, mineral, and 

related terms: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing 

Office, 1,269 p. 

Bates, J.D., 1980, Writing with precision; how to write so that you 

cannot possibly be misunderstood (3d revised ed.): Washington, 

D.C., Acropolis Books, 226 p. 

Bernstein, T.M., 1971, Miss Thistlebottom's hobgoblins; the careful 

writer's guide to the taboos, bugbears and outmoded rules 

of English usage: New York, Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 

260 p. 

Cochran, Wendell; Fenner, Peter; and Hill, Mary, 1984, Geowriting; a guide to writing, editing, and printing in earth science 

(4th ed.): Alexandria, Va., American Geological Institute, 80 p. 

Day, R.A., 1983, How to write and publish a scientific paper (2d 

ed.): Philadelphia, IS1 Press, 181 p. 

Kilpatrick, J.J., 1984, The writer's art: Kansas City, Mo., Andrews, 

McNeel & Parker, 254 p. 

Kirkman, John, 1980, Good style for scientific and engineering 

writing: London, Pitman Publishing Limited, 131 p. 

Williams, J.M., 1981, Style; ten lessons in clarity and grace: Glenview, Ill., Scott, Foresman and Company, 238 p. 

The Chicago manual of style, 1982, (13th revised ed.): Chicago, 

University of Chicago Press, 738 p. 

The New York Times manual of style and usage; a desk book of 

guidelines for writers and editors, 1976 (revised and edited by 

Lewis Jordan): New York, Quadrangle-Times Books, 231 p. 

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984, Style manual, 1984: 

Washington, D.C., 479 p. 

VanLeunen, Mary-Claire, 1978, A handbook for scholars: New 

York, Knopf, 354 p. 

Roget, P.M., 1977, Roget's international thesaurus (4th ed., revised 

by R. L. Chapman): New York, Crowell, 1,317 p. 

Bartlett's familiar quotations (15th ed., edited by E.M. Beck), 1980: 

Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 1,540 p. 

Tufte, E.R., 1983, The visual display of quantitative information: 

Cheshire, Conn., Graphics Press, 197 p. 

If geologists could only be brought to realize that the addition of 

another paper to the swollen flood of our scientific literature involves a serious responsibility, that no man should publish what is 

not a real consequence, and that his statements when published 

should be as clear and condensed as he can make them, what a 

blessed change would come over the faces of their readers. 

Archibald Geikie, 1897 

Putting down the first word is hard for most 

authors, including many who have written best sellers. 

Scientific reports rarely are best sellers, but the pain 

of writer's block can be no less real to their authors. 

Just knowing that other writers suffer the same 

malaise can be reassuring and helpful. Self-discipline 

is the key. Writer's block and indolence are close 

relatives, but ode is no excuse for the other. Steps 

outlined on the following pages should help obviate 

both, though even the most gifted writer must have 

the self-discipline to see an exercise through to completion, especially if the topic is long and complex. If 

you know your subject matter, are reasonably well 

organized, and have completed the few essential 

preparations described in the next few paragraphsbefore you pick up your pencil or sit down at the 

keyboard-the block will melt away like butter in a 

hot skillet. 

BOOKS 4 

1. 1 .:... : 

$ ... .:.: .:.. 

-- . . 

0 1985 Newspaper Enterprise Association, Inc 

Getting started 5 
Steps outlined here apply to routine processing. If 

a report has special urgency, it may receive priority 

processing, and some steps may be telescoped or 

otherwise varied, but the end product generally will 

be of higher quality if the report has followed established publication channels. Your responsibility as 

author is to know the style of your publisher, to 

prepare your report accordingly, and to present your 

data clearly. Your manuscript "should be able to withstand scrutiny as a good piece of writing, exclusive of 

the science" (Sindermann, 1982, p. 29). 

This section summarizes the steps that you will 

normally follow in planning and writing a Survey 

report, beginning when your investigation is authorized and ending with final review and proofing just 

before printing. Procedures and practices that may be 

useful at different stages are also suggested. This 

section is brief, generalized, and mainly chronologic; 

subsequent parts of STA contain the many details of 

form, content, arrangement, and expression that are 

required or suggested for reports of the Geological 

Survey. 

The course and results of investigative or research 

projects can be foreseen only within widely varying 

degrees of clarity and assurance. If a project is rather 

specific, its duration and results can be forecast 

reasonably well-for example, a geologic study of a 

particular area in which the objective is well defined 

and in which the stratigraphic, structural, and other 

features are fairly well known. On the other hand, 

such predictions may prove faulty if a project involves 

research in problems that are little known. To the 

extent feasible, you as investigator and your supervisor should estimate and tentatively plan the 

following: 

1. The time you will need for the study itself and 

for the collateral and supplemental tasks, such as 

searching the literature, making and checking 

calculations, and making laboratory tests. 

2. The number, kind, and size of the reports and 

maps that you intend to prepare and the length of 

time you will need to ready them for first transmittal to the supervisor. Maps or other illustrations that will be complex and costly to publish 

should be discussed with the supervisor and other 

responsible persons to determine the most efficient methods of preparation. 

After the investigation and its collateral tasks have 

been completed, you and your supervisor should1. Review and evaluate the results and decide what 

is worth reporting. 

2. Consider your possible readership: Where to aim 

the report@). 

3. Discuss how to present the results most effectively 

4. Decide the general types, size, scope, and number 

of reports or maps that you should prepare. 

5. Reevaluate the time needed to prepare and revise 

a first draft and the date of its transmittal to 

your supervisor for review. This estimate should 

be realistic. Adherence to the time schedule is an 

official obligation, and substantial delays are permissible only for officially prescribed reasons. 

Your performance in report writing is judged for 

promptness and care, just as any other assignment is. 

Choice of Publication Medium 

To select a suitable publication medium you should 

first consider the size and type of the intended primary readership, the immediacy and permanency of 

the information, and the size and type of the illustrations. Except for reports aimed at outside scientific 

journals, the subject matter and size of the manuscript may have less to do with the choice of publication medium than some of the other factors have. The 

medium, moreover, may be decided by authorities 

higher than yourself. In any event, you should seek 

advice and suggestions as to a probable medium early 

in the manuscript-preparation process; only then can 

you efficiently plan and prepare the illustrations, text, 

and tables. Checking table 1 should help you decide 

where a report best fits. If a report has transient 

interest and is needed quickly by just a few users, it 

may be appropriate for the Survey's open files, or if 

needed quickly by many users it may be published as 

a Circular. 

Maps in black and white are also sometimes open 

filed for early availability while more finished colored 

versions are being prepared for publication. If a 

standard quadrangle map, for example, meets rigid 

requirements as to base, scale, and size, it is printed 

in color as a Geologic Quadrangle (GQ) map. A map 

other than a standard quadrangle but of equal accuracy and permanence should be published in one of 

the other map series. So, too, should a map that 

focuses on special features such as geochemical anomalies or hydrologic characteristics or that is intended 

for printing without color. Guidelines for map preparation are on page 184. 

Many of the factors listed apply also to non-Survey 

publications. Before submitting a paper to an outside 

journal, you should learn the journal's preference as 

to subject matter, length, and illustrations policy by 

6 Before beginning the investigation 
scanning recent issues and by checking the journal's 

policy statements, specifications, and style. Most publishers have their own rules of style, either devised by 

themselves or by some other publisher whose style 

fits their needs. Some stylistic conventions are neither 

technically right nor wrong, and they may differ 

appreciably from one publisher to another. Publication 

style is just intended to provide guidance to authors 

and editors in preparing their reports and to provide 

internal editorial consistency. 

The Detailed Outline 

Many details have been omitted which would have been given had 

the facts been presented as they were collected * * * but it was 

thought that such a method would result in encumbering geological 

literature with a mass of undigested facts of little value. 

J. w. Pozueu, 1876 

You are now ready to draw up a more detailed outline. Done carefully and thoughtfully, this task is one 

of the most constructive and profitable steps in all 

your preparations. Without careful planning, even the 

most experienced author will fritter away time in 

marshaling thoughts and will waste even more time 

later in recasting the manuscript to supply the missing logic and completeness. In the long run the hours 

or days spent drawing up a well-rounded outline are 

thoroughly justified. 

As a background, familiarize yourself with the 

general order of topics in most Geological Survey 

reports by leafing through recently published ones 

and by studying this volume, where many details of 

form and arrangement are explained. Many reports 

follow a rather conventional pattern, particularly 

reports that summarize a survey of an area and present scientific and economic conclusions. Reports on 

more abstract research may be organized more 

diversely, especially where an order of treatment 

must be chosen to bring out clearly and convincingly 

the solutions to complex problems and the evidence 

for the resulting theories and conclusions. 

From these examples and suggestions, and with due 

thought to the nature and purpose of the proposed 

report and the needs of the readers, you can then 

choose the most logical and appropriate order. At this 

stage it would be wise to discuss your plans with local 

editors and graphic specialists. Outline the organizational pattern as a tentative, more or less detailed 

table of contents, with headings and subheadings to 

indicate the topics to be discussed. For a rather brief 

and simple report, such a generalized outline may suffice for arranging the material and doing the actual 

writing. You must sort out all notes and observations, 

omit what is irrelevant, and arrange what will be included. Ideas may be set down on cards or sheets of 

paper, with one topic per card or sheet. Later, each 

topic may be developed in greater detail-perhaps on 

a word processor. The cards or sheets help exclude 

irrelevant material and help prevent the omission of 

important data. They also enable you to add, subtract, 

combine, or rearrange data as the report progresses, 

to ensure order and balance. 

Try during this planning stage to reach tentative 

conclusions about illustrations and tables. Illustrations 

can show at a glance what could not possibly be 

described in the text, or what would require many 

words to explain. Carefully chosen photographs can 

illustrate significant features not otherwise easily 

depicted. Concise tables can summarize data that 

otherwise would be difficult for the reader to 

assimilate. 

One other point should be borne in mind at this 

stage: If advice and decisions about the use of new 

geographic and geologic names will be required from 

the Board on Geographic Names or from the Survey's 

Geologic Names Committee, you should anticipate 

such needs as early as possible. 

The First Draft 

Writing the first draft is the longest and most arduous part of authorship. To express information and 

ideas clearly, concisely, logically, and convincingly, 

and to prepare copy for illustrations, requires thought 

and perseverance. Authors and supervisors, moreover, 

should avoid the start of new duties until the first 

draft of a manuscript-in-progress is finished. When 

your manuscript is complete, you and your supervisor 

should carefully monitor its movement through review, 

editing, and the various other processing channels 

leading to publication. Conscientious and thorough 

execution of these tasks brings many rewards, 

including personal satisfaction, speedier handling of 

the manuscript by fellow workers, higher quality and 

quicker publication, and greater value to the reader. 

Methods of drafting manuscripts vary widely, and 

no rule or guide fits the needs of all. Each author 

develops personal techniques and habits. Working 

from a topical outline, an author usually drafts out 

one topic before taking up another. This method provides continuity of thought and completeness of coverage. Not all sections, however, need be written in the 

order of their appearance in the finished report-for 

example, the abstract and the introductory material 

should be prepared after the rest of the text has been 

written. 

The manuscript may be written in various ways, 

each of which has adherents. One author may focus 

attention solely on the subject matter, completing the 

first draft without interrupting the flow of thought to 

The first draft 
criticize and improve the writing. Adherents believe 

this method results in a clear, though roughly cast, 

exposition of the author's ideas. 

Another author mentally assembles ideas and 

thoughts in their best perceived order, then ponders 

how best to express them clearly, logically, and forcefully. This author writes deliberately-weighing not 

only what to say but also how to say it. The resulting 

first draft will be superior to a more rapidly written 

draft and later will require less recasting to achieve 

polish. Most authors wisely read and work over their 

manuscripts many times, a step greatly facilitated by 

the use of word processors. You should doublecheck 

for logic, order of treatment, prominence given significant features, completeness, accuracy, irrelevant 

material, confusing statements and disagreements of 

facts, and repetition, and for compliance with the 

requirements and suggestions given in this volume. 

At this stage you should also prepare near-final 

copy for all maps, charts, diagrams, tables (to be 

reproduced from office printers such as daisywheel 

and laser printers), and photographs. Reviewers and 

editors will need copies, which illustrators will later 

put into form for publication. Whether to complete 

this task before or during the writing of the manuscript depends on the complexity of the material, but 

the tables at least should be compiled and the illustrations and their titles should be firm enough to be 

cited and discussed at appropriate places in the text. 

Suggestions for preparing illustrations are given on 

subsequent pages. 

While preparing the text and illustrations, you can 

profit greatly by consulting fellow workers on both 

general and specific topics. Also, you may ask knowledgeable associates to preview all or parts of the 

manuscript. Such informal previews require comparatively little effort on your part or your reviewer's, 

but they pay large dividends. You may wish to again 

consult text or map editors about stylistic matters. 

Preparing and Checking Report for Technical Review 

The next step is to prepare the typescript for formal technical review. Authors using word processors 

may combine this step with the previous one. The 

first keyboarding should be done in accordance with 

the practices specified on pages 250-264. Several 

stages of review and revision will follow, and eventually some or many pages must be redone at least 

once before the manuscript is sent to the printer. If 

the report will go to several reviewers, you might 

make extra copies for simultaneous review; the advantages of so doing must be weighed against the additional effort of reconciling comments and transferring 

responses to a single copy. 

When your typescript ("hard copy") is prepared, 

proofread it thoroughly to eliminate typographical 

errors and omissions. Word processors offer programs 

that will catch most spelling errors, but only you 

can detect omissions or words correctly spelled but 

wrongly used. At this time you should also check the 

accuracy of the whole report, including illustrations, 

quotations, mathematics, and citations of publications. 

The report should meet all requirements as to content, format, and supplemental information such as 

acknowledgments. Then you are ready to submit the 

completed document to your project supervisor, 

accompanied perhaps by a suitable memorandum of 

transmittal explaining any special circumstances and 

suggesting reviewers. 

Technical Review and Revision 

The report is reviewed by professional colleagues 

within the originating office. It may also be sent to 

other offices if all or parts of it relate to their fields. 

The sequence of steps that follows next may vary in 

different Divisions of the Survey, but the objectives 

are the same: to assure the best possible science and 

presentation. If your report is being processed by the 

Water Resources Division, its routing procedure is 

outlined on page 30. The procedures immediately 

following apply to all Divisions. At least one reviewer 

should be specially qualified by knowledge and interest in the problems discussed. Another reviewer 

might read the report for general content. Both must 

strive to assure scientific validity and clarity. To that 

end they call attention to weak spots in text and illustrations through marginal notes and interlineations, 

or through attached memorandums if their questions 

and suggestions are complex. See also guidelines for 

reviewing technical reports and maps @. 226). 

Knowing the purpose of the review and the spirit in 

which the comments are made, you must try to profit 

from them. Every comment should be thoughtfully 

considered, all questions raised by the reviewers 

should be addressed, and appropriate changes or corrections should follow. Unaccepted differences with 

the reviewer must be explained, either in the margin 

of the manuscript or on an attached memorandum. If 

the differences are substantial, or if there seem to be 

misunderstandings, you should elaborate by written 

responses attached to the manuscript. The Survey 

encourages informal consultations and discussions 

between reviewers and authors to clanfy viewpoints 

and reach agreement. Such interactions are not 

generally possible, however, for reports written for 

outside journals. There, the journal editor usually acts 

as intermediary. 

8 Preparing and checking report for technical review 
Stratigraphic names and correlations are checked 

at this point by the Geologic Names Unit (GNU) to 

assure consistency and compliance with the established usage. Instructions from GNU must be strictly 

followed, unless GNU modifies them after further 

discussion. Your designated approval officer signs off 

approval when satisfied that your paper is ready to 

go forward for further processing, and sends it to the 

appropriate publications office. Manuscript copy from 

this point forward is referred to as "mill copy," a 

term used repeatedly in STA. 

After the report leaves your office it receives further processing if it is intended for formal Survey 

publication. (Outside papers originating in the Geologic Division are checked further only on request.) 

Maps, diagrams, and other illustrations involving 

geology are examined by a geologic map editor, who 

looks for errors and inaccuracies and also indicates 

changes in format necessary to assure clarity, conformity with Survey practices and standards, and 

economical printing. Reviewers' comments and other 

papers must stay with the manuscript; review markings on text and illustrations must not be erased. 

Editing 

Editing follows technical review. The editorial staff 

prepares for the printer all manuscripts that are to be 

published by the Survey. The editors examine (1) the 

content and rank of headings, (2) the form of the 

footnotes and the citations of publications, (3) the use 

of geographic names, (4) the form of tables and sections, and (5) the various features of typographic 

style-such as capitalization, punctuation, spelling, 

and sizes and styles of type-as well as many other 

details. Much of this work follows prescribed rules, 

including those of the U.S. Government Printing 

Office Style Manual. 

The Author and the Editor 

Editing serves another purpose: The editors 

approach the manuscript as detached but sympathetic 

readers who look at it from the viewpoint of the 

intended readership. Most editors are gentle people 

whose overriding concern is to maintain the quality of 

their publications. Most of them suffer silently the 

brickbats of short-tempered authors and seldom seek 

or receive the plaudits they deserve. They try to 

understand your ideas, and in trying to help express 

those ideas as clearly and concisely as possible, they 

make suggestions about organization, paragraphing, 

grammar or rhetoric, how to recast obscure passages, 

how to eliminate repetitious or irrelevant matter, and 

many other topics. These suggestions are made solely 

to improve the report. You as author might be 

reassured to remember that editors have helped 

polish the manuscripts of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest 

Hemingway, James Michener, and many other 

talented writers, and with their blessings and 

gratitude (Garfield, 1985). 

Editors, like authors, are not infallible, and they 

occasionally prick points of authorial tenderness. 

Oddly enough, some scientists are more sensitive to 

assaults on their grammar and rhetoric than on their 

technical prowess. Recognizing your own frailties as 

an author is one step toward harmony with all your 

supporting staff. 

Editorial changes usually are made to rectify perceived shortcomings. Editors may inadvertently alter 

an author's meanings, especially obscure meanings, 

but if an editor or a critic feels compelled to make a 

change or raise a question, something in the manuscript probably needs attention. And before you protest that your "colleagues will understand what is 

meant," realize that the Survey, too, wants them to 

understand but also wants its products grammatically 

correct, syntactically clear, and logically put together. 

With a bit of introspection, you can avoid such tiresome marginal cliches as, "Stet! You changed my 

meaning," or "A geologist [or hydrologist, or astrogeophysicist] would understand," or "Nitpicking!" 

Take heart, and save your energy for more productive 

ends. 

Perceptive authors and editors alike recognize that 

science editing is an art in shades of gray, not in 

black and white. Tactful editorial comment, therefore, 

must be tentative, discreet, and needed. After all, the 

names of authors, not editors, grace title pages, book 

spines, and file cards. Authors receive lasting praise 

for all their pearls of wisdom, but they also take the 

knocks for any blunders. Editors just go to unmarked 

graves. You as author should remember that your 

editors and critics stand briefly in the stead of your 

readers-readers who will ultimately judge the merits 

of your writings. As the last filter between you and 

your readers, your editors should be seen as collaborators, not adversaries. For their part, and to minimize 

the chances of misreadings, editors can help by making their comments neatly and legibly with a wellsharpened pencil. Few things bother authors more 

than blatant, illegible markings all over their reports. 

When your edited manuscript is returned, you must 

carefully examine all suggestions and corrections. 

Make sure that the intended meaning has not really 

been altered, and if any change seems out of line, try 

to reconcile it with the editor without delay. Changes 

must be avoided that would conflict with the official 

approval of the report. When all such conflicts are 

resolved, your report is forwarded for Director's 

The author and the editor 9 
approval, though the exact sequence of events may 

vary from Division to Division. 

Director's Approval 

The high quality and scientific integrity of Geological Survey publications have earned wide respect 

for the Survey for more than 100 years. Survey 

investigations best serve the public at large, rather 

than serving special interest groups or individuals. 

Approval by the Director is the final step in the 

processing of a report before its release for 

production and publication. 

All interpretive writings in which the Survey has a 

proprietary interest, including abstracts, letters to the 

editor, and all writings that show the author's title 

and Survey affiliation must be approved by the Director before release or publication. The Survey has a 

proprietary interest in all data and manuscripts derived from research or investigations funded by the 

Survey. The objectives of the Director's review are to 

final-check the technical quality of the report and to 

make certain that the report meets Survey publication 

standards and is consistent with policies of the Survey 

and Department of the Interior. Director's approval 

ensures that (1) each publication is impartial and 

objective, (2) its conclusions do not compromise the 

Survey's official position, (3) the report does not take 

an unwarranted advocacy position, and (4) the report 

does not criticize or compete with other governmental 

agencies or the private sector. 

The Director has delegated approval authority to 

the Associate Chief, Office of Scientific Publications, 

Geologic Division. Reports may acknowledge official 

authorization by using the wording "Manuscript 

approved for publication (monthlday, year)". 

After the Director has approved your report, an 

important milestone has been reached, and toasts 

are in order all around. Beyond that point no further 

change may be made in the text or illustrations, 

except of an editorial nature, unless the proposed 

change is submitted through official channels, is 

suitably endorsed, and is formally approved. 

Checking Drafted Illustrations 

Maps and other illustrations prepared by the 

illustrators (graphics specialists and cartographic 

technicians) are reexamined by several designated 

persons, including map and text editors and you as 

author. Long experience has shown that errors, 

especially omissions, may appear in the drafting itself 

and in the wording on the illustrations, despite the 

skill and care of the illustrators. As the person most 

familiar with the details, you must thoroughly scrutinize the illustrations at this stage before approving 

and returning them. To minimize the need for corrections and revisions, please submit the best and clearest possible drafts of your illustrations to the graphics 

staff before final preparation begins. Corrections or 

other changes made on illustrations may require 

changes in the text. Important revisions must be 

submitted through official channels for approval. 

Galley and Page Proofs 

Your last step before the manuscript is published is 

to examine proofs of the text and proofs of maps and 

other illustrations. This step should be thorough, and 

there is a special need for promptness to avoid delaying publication. How to read proof is outlined on page 

265. The chief purpose of proofreading is to detect 

errors introduced during typesetting and reproduction. Because the manuscript was fully prepared and 

polished before its transmittal for reproduction, you 

must not attempt further factual revision at the proof 

stage. Some minor changes from copy may be permitted in galleys to correct errors of fact that have 

escaped notice during earlier reviews, but changes in 

proofs are costly and are permitted only to correct 

definite errors. Any other changes require exceptional 

justification. When the report has been published, 

several copies are furnished to you as author for 

personal disposition. 

WORD PROCESSORS: CHANGING THE 

WAY SCIENTISTS WRITE 

Rapid technological advances in computer word 

processing are changing how scientists write. Rather 

than laboriously composing in longhand or on a typewriter, many authors now keyboard their thoughts 

directly into the storage disk of a computer. Wordprocessing systems thus increase the efficiency and 

accuracy of preparing text and of editing and revising 

typed reports. 

A word processor is a computer geared to generate, 

edit, process, and print text material. It is a softwarebased, microprocessor-controlled typing system. Large 

(mainframe) and small (personal) computers have 

many capabilities, including word processing. Until 

recently, word-processing functions were fairly 

difficult to learn and operate, but new systems are 

increasingly simple and versatile. STA provides no 

operator instructions; it merely outlines the 

advantages of the new technology. 

A word-processing system consists of an electronic 

keyboard, a video display, a means of storing data 

in readable form on a magnetic disk or tape, and a 

printer. The system should feature easy entry of text 

10 Director's approval 
and equations, elementary formatting, simple revision, 

and effortless printing. After typescript ("hard copy") 

is printed, the report follows conventional Survey 

review and editing procedures, but all changes and 

corrections are made on the word-processing disk. 

Then, after revision and approval of the manuscript, 

the disk version can be formatted for automatic typesetting and transmittal to the typesetter via telecommunication techniques. The goal of word processing is 

to keyboard data only once and to deal with machinereadable copy thereafter. 

The ease of entering information and, most importantly, the ease of making corrections affect the 

quality of reports prepared on the word processor. 

Scientists are quick to recognize that as they type 

they may develop ideas and lines of reasoning completely separate from the part of the report they are 

working on. Once keyboarded into the word processor, these thoughts can be tagged or coded and 

quickly moved as a unit to more proper places, in the 

report, or even stored for later use. The scientist can 

then continue with the original report until the next 

idea strikes. 

Many scientists are slow and inaccurate typists, 

but once they are used to the ease of keyboarding 

corrections on word processors, their typing speed 

commonly improves, because typographical errors are 

so easily rectified. Most scientists simply proofread 

and correct their material on the video screen before 

printing hard copy (although hard copy has to be 

proofed also). Many word-processing programs now 

include spell-correction packages that catch many 

typographic mistakes. 

Before the advent of word processors, the turnaround time from manuscript submittal to typist and 

return could be as long as several weeks or even 

months. The scientist's concentration on the subject 

and train of thought were broken during such a 

period, and valuable time was lost refreshing memories, checking references and notes, and getting back 

on track with the research paper. In addition, revisions were reluctantly made on the typescript because 

of the long turn-around time and extra work involved 

in retyping, but nowadays, as authors are encouraged 

to keyboard and correct their own reports, they can 

expend their full energies on the manuscript from 

conception to completion without distractive waiting 

periods and delays in the typing pool. 

Accessibility is important. A word processor or 

computer terminal should be on the scientist's desk or 

nearby where the manuscript can be brought up conveniently onto a viewing screen. Translating an idea 

to text easily and conveniently and being able to 

devote periods as short as several minutes to a manuscript can only improve efficiency and productivity. 

Word processors: changing the way scientists write 11