Q. I am editing manuscripts for publication in an international scholarly journal. The journal uses CMOS. The British author has cited a book’s edition published by a British publisher, for which the title uses the British spelling (Thy Neighbour’s Wife). For the bibliography (and notes), should the British spelling be changed to US spelling, for consistency? I am inclined to retain the British spelling.
A. That’s exactly right. It’s essential to retain the British spelling. No editor has the right to copyedit an already published work!
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In the June 2017 Q&A you state that when giving the ISBN number, the format may be identified as cloth, paper, or e-book. Does this imply that cloth is synonymous with hardcover? What if, like Hope and Crosby, a book is Morocco bound?
A. Yes, cloth is pretty much synonymous with hardcover. If a book is leather-bound, a publisher might choose to say so, of course (leaving Hope and Crosby out of it).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I noticed that you always specify that the correct font for a typical subject is Roman. I never use Roman for anything. Normally I prefer Calibri. Would it be appropriate to follow the format of the subject in the Calibri font?
A. I wonder if you’ve misunderstood our use of roman. “Roman” isn’t a font. It’s just a way to refer to the lack of italics. Even if you use the Calibri font, you have to choose roman or italic Calibri. Maybe you’re thinking of Times New Roman, which is the name of a font, like Calibri. Times New Roman also comes in roman and italic (and bold, and small caps, etc.). We do recommend using a serifed font like Times New Roman or Palatino for manuscript preparation (on paper, that is—not for online display).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In CMOS (16th ed.), fig. 1.1, the ISBN is followed by a format designator in parentheses—the example given is “(cloth).” What are Chicago’s other standard format labels for other types of binding?
A. We use cloth, paper, and e-book. [Update: For a newer example, see fig. 1.1 in the 17th edition.]
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. We published a book in 2014 and did not think it would need a second printing. The book has since sold out, and now we plan to issue a second printing in 2017. Is it overkill to include an impression line on the copyright page? We do not plan a third printing, but, of course, we were wrong the first time. We would have something like
17 2
in the second. Is it ever appropriate to indicate the second printing in a narrative form?
A. There are probably many editors who have found themselves in this position. It’s never inappropriate to add helpful information. “Second printing” or “2nd printing” would be crystal clear, but if you prefer to have an impression line, “17 2” would baffle most readers. To make a traditional second-impression line for a book published in 2017, write something like
21 20 19 18 17 2 3 4
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Who is responsible for putting in text corrections to a manuscript, the editor or the people in graphics? This is a real bone of contention in our office.
A. Typically, editors make corrections up to a certain point in the production process, after which they no longer have access to the files. At that point a graphic designer or typesetter must make the corrections, either as requested by an editor or with the editor’s knowledge and approval. Every publishing house should have a strict protocol for such matters.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How many times does it take for a foreign word to become familiar in a document? And does distance between occurrences matter? In reference to CMOS 7.53: “If a word from another language becomes familiar through repeated use throughout a work, it need be italicized only on its first occurrence. If it appears only rarely, however, italics may be retained.” This novel I’m working on has tons of foreign words in the dialogue that vary all over the place in frequency.
A. It’s not wise to quantify these things. You must use your judgment. Each word is a separate case. After all, non-English words that have an English cognate (activisme; simpatico; Milch; abreviación) are easily learned, but others might be very difficult. If you’re spending a great deal of time making decisions, consider making all non-English words italic all the time, knowing that some readers may find this tiresome and others helpful. The writer and editor must decide the best course.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is it normal to not indent the first paragraph after subheadings?
A. Yes—it’s common practice to begin the paragraph after a subheading flush left.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am looking to know the proper style for when I start my paper with a block quote. This quote is not integrated into the text. It is simply there in lieu of an introductory paragraph at the very, very beginning of my paper. I have thoroughly gone through the manual and cannot find an example or advice for what to do in this instance.
A. This sounds like an epigraph, which may be set off like a block quote, without quotation marks, and with the author’s name immediately following. You can find advice on formatting epigraphs at CMOS 1.37, 1.49, and 13.36.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In a table, where would you put the row for Miscellaneous or Other if it has numbers large enough that if the rows were ordered by size, it would appear as row 2 or 3?
|
Event type
|
No.
|
%
|
|
Medication
|
1,045
|
55
|
|
Other
|
503
|
27
|
|
Surgery
|
241
|
13
|
|
Dietary
|
99
|
5
|
A. Since other implies “not important enough to identify more explicitly,” that line should go at the bottom of the table. And when a miscellaneous category accounts for so large a part of the data, it should be explained in a note.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]