Editing Practice of scholarship (Spring 2019)

From CommunityData

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 70: Line 70:
  
 
Your final project for the course is a submission-ready manuscript for a peer reviewed conference or journal of your choosing. It should follow the style, length, and formatting guidelines of the venue in which you seek to publish it.
 
Your final project for the course is a submission-ready manuscript for a peer reviewed conference or journal of your choosing. It should follow the style, length, and formatting guidelines of the venue in which you seek to publish it.
 
[https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/91705/assignments/575733 Submit via Canvas]
 
  
 
== Evaluation and grades ==
 
== Evaluation and grades ==
Line 104: Line 102:
 
=== Week 2: April 8 — Planning your work & work your plan ===
 
=== Week 2: April 8 — Planning your work & work your plan ===
 
'''Reading Part I:'''
 
'''Reading Part I:'''
* Becker, Howard. ''Writing for Social Scientists.'' Chapters 1 ("Freshman English for Graduate Students") & 7 ("Getting It out the Door") (Available on [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/files/6757598/download?download_frd=1 Canvas]).
+
* Becker, Howard. ''Writing for Social Scientists.'' Chapters 1 ("Freshman English for Graduate Students") & 7 ("Getting It out the Door").
 
* Booth et al. Prologue to Section IV ("Planning Again") and Quick Tip on Outlining (pp. 185-188).
 
* Booth et al. Prologue to Section IV ("Planning Again") and Quick Tip on Outlining (pp. 185-188).
  
Line 117: Line 115:
  
 
'''Assignment:'''
 
'''Assignment:'''
 
''Note'': Please complete all assignments before class each week. Written assignments submitted to Canvas (your project synopsis this week) should be completed by Friday at 5pm.
 
  
 
* Identify, summarize, and outline an exemplary paper:  
 
* Identify, summarize, and outline an exemplary paper:  
Line 129: Line 125:
 
** Be sure to include all of the elements I listed above.  
 
** Be sure to include all of the elements I listed above.  
 
** The new and improved synopsis should be 750-1000 words long (just the text) and may include references if you want.  
 
** The new and improved synopsis should be 750-1000 words long (just the text) and may include references if you want.  
** Submit the synopsis to [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/91705/discussion_topics/597416 the corresponding "Discussion" in Canvas] '''by Friday, April 5, 2019 at 5pm'''.
+
** Submit the synopsis to [https://canvas.northwestern.edu the corresponding "Discussion" in Canvas] '''by Friday, April 5, 2019 at 5pm'''.
* Review a peer's synopsis. Write comments, email them to the author and come prepared to discuss them in class.
+
* Review a peer's synopsis. Write comments and bring them to class.
  
 
=== Week 3: April 15 — Research question: Where's the puzzle? ===
 
=== Week 3: April 15 — Research question: Where's the puzzle? ===
 
* [[Practice of scholarship (Spring 2019)/week 3 session plan| Session plan]]
 
 
 
'''Reading:'''
 
'''Reading:'''
::''Please note: Our in-class activities and discussion will focus on the Durkheim, Pan, and Zuckerman readings as well as your written assignments. The other readings are largely there as instructional supplements.''
 
 
* Booth et al., Chapter 3 ("From Topics to Questions") & Chapter 4 ("From Questions to Problems").
 
* Booth et al., Chapter 3 ("From Topics to Questions") & Chapter 4 ("From Questions to Problems").
 
* Durkheim, Émile. 1897. ''Suicide''. Excerpt — final section of the Introduction ([https://canvas.northwestern.edu/ available via Canvas]).   
 
* Durkheim, Émile. 1897. ''Suicide''. Excerpt — final section of the Introduction ([https://canvas.northwestern.edu/ available via Canvas]).   
 
* Kahn, C. Ronald. 1994. "[http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199405263302113 Sounding Board: Picking a Research Problem — The Critical Decision]." ''The New England Journal of Medicine 330''(21):1530-1533.
 
* Kahn, C. Ronald. 1994. "[http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199405263302113 Sounding Board: Picking a Research Problem — The Critical Decision]." ''The New England Journal of Medicine 330''(21):1530-1533.
* Pan, Jennifer, and Kaiping Chen. 2018. "Concealing Corruption: How Chinese Officials Distort Upward Reporting of Online Grievances." ''American Political Science Review.'' 112(3): 602-620. ([http://jenpan.com/jen_pan/sendup.pdf PDF available via Jen Pan's website]). '''We will focus on the Introduction''' (especially the long first paragraph).
 
 
* Zuckerman, Ezra. 2017. [https://www.dropbox.com/s/a3n1ux6lnu7wbpe/On%20Genre.pdf?dl=1 On genre: A few more tips to article-writers] (pdf).  
 
* Zuckerman, Ezra. 2017. [https://www.dropbox.com/s/a3n1ux6lnu7wbpe/On%20Genre.pdf?dl=1 On genre: A few more tips to article-writers] (pdf).  
  
Line 153: Line 144:
  
 
=== Week 4: April 22 — Prior Work: Interrupting a conversation ===
 
=== Week 4: April 22 — Prior Work: Interrupting a conversation ===
 
* [[Practice_of_scholarship_(Spring_2019)/week 4 session plan|session plan]]
 
 
 
'''Reading:'''
 
'''Reading:'''
 
* Becker, Chapter 8 ("Terrorized by the Literature").
 
* Becker, Chapter 8 ("Terrorized by the Literature").
 
* Booth et al., Chapter 6 ("Engaging Sources").
 
* Booth et al., Chapter 6 ("Engaging Sources").
* Becker, Howard. 1953. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2771989.pdf "Becoming a Marihuana User."](pdf) ''American Journal of Sociology'', ''(59)''3: 235-242. (Focus on the first section up through p. 236)
+
* Becker, Howard. 1953. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2771989.pdf "Becoming a Marihuana User."](pdf) ''American Journal of Sociology'', ''(59)''3: 235-242.
* Shaw, Aaron and Eszter Hargittai. 2018. [https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx003 "The pipeline of online participation inequalities: The case of Wikipedia"]. ''Journal of Communication'', ''(68)''1: 143-168. (Focus on the parts before "Data and methods" on p. 149)
 
 
* '''Optional:''' Healy, Kieran. 2017. [http://kieranhealy.org/files/papers/fuck-nuance.pdf Fuck Nuance](pdf). ''Sociological Theory'', ''(35)''2: 118-127.   
 
* '''Optional:''' Healy, Kieran. 2017. [http://kieranhealy.org/files/papers/fuck-nuance.pdf Fuck Nuance](pdf). ''Sociological Theory'', ''(35)''2: 118-127.   
  
Line 166: Line 153:
 
* Identify the two or three most important existing theories/findings/systems that your work will test/synthesize/extend/enhance. Briefly (in about 250 words per theory/finding/system!) explain the relevant claims of the prior work, how it connects to your project, and what differentiates your project from it. As usual, post this to [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/ the appropriate "Discussion" page on Canvas].
 
* Identify the two or three most important existing theories/findings/systems that your work will test/synthesize/extend/enhance. Briefly (in about 250 words per theory/finding/system!) explain the relevant claims of the prior work, how it connects to your project, and what differentiates your project from it. As usual, post this to [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/ the appropriate "Discussion" page on Canvas].
 
* Review a peer's posting. For each existing theory/finding/system they discuss, do they provide an effective, compelling rationale that justifies their project in relation to prior work? Are you convinced that they are addressing an important question in their domain of study?
 
* Review a peer's posting. For each existing theory/finding/system they discuss, do they provide an effective, compelling rationale that justifies their project in relation to prior work? Are you convinced that they are addressing an important question in their domain of study?
* Complete [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfgl4SSyt-BgNAppFp7pJRYAj8aBF6q2ATuaSciqJCnz4cORw/viewform?usp=sf_link mid-quarter course evaluation] (by Friday also).
+
* Complete [https://1.1.1.1 mid-quarter course evaluation].
  
=== Week 5: April 29 — Method & Warrant ===
+
=== Week 5: April 29 — Method: Research design & justification ===
* [[Practice_of_scholarship_(Spring_2019)/week 5 session plan|Session plan]]
 
 
'''Reading:'''
 
'''Reading:'''
* Benzecry, Claudio. 2009. [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11133-009-9123-7 Becoming a fan: On the seductions of opera]. ''Qualitative Sociology'', 32(2), 131-151.
+
* Small, Mario Luis., 2009. [http://eth.sagepub.com/content/10/1/5.short How many cases do I need? On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research]." ''Ethnography (10)'':1, 5-38.
* Hecht, Brent, and Darren Gergle. 2010. [https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1753370 The tower of babel meets web 2.0: User-generated content and its applications in a multilingual context]. ''Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI)''.
+
* '''Optional:''' Booth et al., Chapter 9 ("Reasons and Evidence").
* Katz, Jack. 1997. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124197025004002 Ethnography’s Warrants]. ''Sociological Methods & Research'', 25(4), 391–423.
 
* '''Strongly recommended:''' Booth et al., Chapter 9 ("Reasons and Evidence").
 
* '''Optional:''' Small, Mario Luis. 2009. [http://eth.sagepub.com/content/10/1/5.short How many cases do I need? On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research]." ''Ethnography (10)'':1, 5-38.
 
  
 
'''Assignment:'''
 
'''Assignment:'''
 +
* Complete mid-course self-assessment and reflection (link TBA).
 
* Write up the methodological approach you (plan to) pursue in your project and your justification for the approach. Make sure to restate your research question and explain why the data/evidence you (will) collect and the method(s) of analysis you (will) use provide insight into the problem you are addressing. Make sure that your argument will convince a skeptical reader that your approach is sensible, well-thought through, and compelling (500-800 words) Post to the [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/36533/discussion_topics/236976 discussion page].
 
* Write up the methodological approach you (plan to) pursue in your project and your justification for the approach. Make sure to restate your research question and explain why the data/evidence you (will) collect and the method(s) of analysis you (will) use provide insight into the problem you are addressing. Make sure that your argument will convince a skeptical reader that your approach is sensible, well-thought through, and compelling (500-800 words) Post to the [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/36533/discussion_topics/236976 discussion page].
 
* Review a peer's write-up of their methodological approach & justification. Does it make sense? Has the author provided a clear and compelling rationale for the analytical approach they take to their research problem and the data they use? Is there a mismatch between the research questions and the data? Between the methods of analysis and the focus of the inquiry? Be a skeptical (but nonetheless generous) reviewer.
 
* Review a peer's write-up of their methodological approach & justification. Does it make sense? Has the author provided a clear and compelling rationale for the analytical approach they take to their research problem and the data they use? Is there a mismatch between the research questions and the data? Between the methods of analysis and the focus of the inquiry? Be a skeptical (but nonetheless generous) reviewer.
  
 
=== Week 6: May 6 — Results & Discussion ===
 
=== Week 6: May 6 — Results & Discussion ===
 
* [[Practice_of_scholarship_(Spring_2019)/week 6 session plan|session plan]]
 
 
 
'''Reading assignment goals:''' This week you will use ''one of the instructional readings'' and ''your model paper'' to extract general guidelines for presenting results and analysis. If you would like suggestions for additional model papers, please ask Aaron.
 
'''Reading assignment goals:''' This week you will use ''one of the instructional readings'' and ''your model paper'' to extract general guidelines for presenting results and analysis. If you would like suggestions for additional model papers, please ask Aaron.
  
'''Reading: choose your own adventure.''' Because the presentations and discussions of results vary so widely across methods and research communities, you should chose ''one'' of the instructional readings below. Each one is aimed at writing up and discussing results gathered through a specific method (participant observation, field experiments (and other inferential quantitative studies), interviews, and systems papers respectively. Copies of the text(s) will be posted to the [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/91705/files/folder/readings "readings" directory] on Canvas.
+
'''Reading: choose your own adventure.''' Because the presentations and discussions of results vary so widely across methods and research communities, you should chose ''one'' of the instructional readings below. Each one is aimed at writing up and discussing results gathered through a specific method (participant observation, interviews, and field experiments respectively. Copies of the text(s) can be made available if we need them.
 
* Emerson, Fretz & Shaw. 1995. ''Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes,'' Chapter 7.
 
* Emerson, Fretz & Shaw. 1995. ''Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes,'' Chapter 7.
 +
* Weiss. 1994. ''Learning from Strangers,'' Chapter 7.
 
* Gerber & Green. 2012. ''Field Experiments,'' Chapter 13.
 
* Gerber & Green. 2012. ''Field Experiments,'' Chapter 13.
* Weiss. 1994. ''Learning from Strangers,'' Chapter 7.
 
* Zhang, Haoqi. n.d. [https://docs.google.com/document/d/17TJ-N9oxsTWlenlMsPOzfinMGFEEfdY36YZnpia7hvE/edit# Writing an academic (systems) paper], the parts on "system description", "study/experiment/deployment", and "discussion."
 
  
 
Please note: Aaron will add other potential instructional readings to this list as he becomes aware of them. If you know of another instructional reading that you would like to use because it fits your purposes better, please ask Aaron so he can review it and confirm that it's suitable for the assignment.
 
Please note: Aaron will add other potential instructional readings to this list as he becomes aware of them. If you know of another instructional reading that you would like to use because it fits your purposes better, please ask Aaron so he can review it and confirm that it's suitable for the assignment.
Line 199: Line 179:
  
 
'''Assignment:'''
 
'''Assignment:'''
* Based on your instructional reading ''and'' your model paper, prepare a check-list (or some similarly concise, usable representation) of attributes of excellently presented research evidence/findings. Your list (or whatever) should be the kind of thing you will use to guide your own work. Upload this to the [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/91705/discussion_topics corresponding Canvas "Discussion."] We will use these to compile lists and common themes in class.
+
* Based on your instructional reading ''and'' your model paper, prepare a check-list (or some similarly concise, usable representation) of attributes of excellently presented research evidence/findings. Your list (or whatever) should be the kind of thing you will use to guide your own work. Upload this to the [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/ corresponding Canvas "Discussion."] We will use these to compile lists and common themes in class (using [https://docs.google.com/ a google drive file (link TBA]).
* Write up about 1000 words synthesizing the (anticipated) findings and discussing the significance of your research and upload that to the [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/91705/discussion_topics corresponding Canvas "Discussion."] I recommend doing this in two parts:
+
* Write up about 1000 words synthesizing the (anticipated) findings and discussing the significance of your research and upload that to the [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/ corresponding Canvas "Discussion."] I recommend doing this in two parts:
** Write ~500 words explaining the (anticipated) findings from your study. Quite literally, explain what you (expect to) find. What patterns of evidence (would) support these findings? If appropriate, include schematic/simulated versions of any data visualizations or tables that (will) support your claims.
+
** Write ~500 words explaining the (anticipated) findings from your study. Quite literally, explain what you (expect to) find. What patterns of evidence (would) support these findings? If appropriate, include any data visualizations or tables you (plan to) present.
 
** Write ~500 words discussing the findings in the context of the research questions and prior literature that frames your project. What is the (expected) contribution of your research? What do you (expect to) know at the conclusion of your study that was unknown or misunderstood before your study?
 
** Write ~500 words discussing the findings in the context of the research questions and prior literature that frames your project. What is the (expected) contribution of your research? What do you (expect to) know at the conclusion of your study that was unknown or misunderstood before your study?
 
* Provide feedback to your peer on their findings and discussion write up (and ''only'' their findings and discussion write up).
 
* Provide feedback to your peer on their findings and discussion write up (and ''only'' their findings and discussion write up).
  
 
=== Week 7: May 13 — Introduction & Conclusion: End up at the beginning ===
 
=== Week 7: May 13 — Introduction & Conclusion: End up at the beginning ===
* [[Practice_of_scholarship_(Spring_2019)/Week 7 session plan|Session plan]]
 
 
'''Reading:'''
 
'''Reading:'''
 
* Little, Andrew T. 2016. "[http://www.andrewtlittle.com/papers/little_intros.pdf Three Templates for Introductions to Political Science Articles]." Manuscript, Cornell University.
 
* Little, Andrew T. 2016. "[http://www.andrewtlittle.com/papers/little_intros.pdf Three Templates for Introductions to Political Science Articles]." Manuscript, Cornell University.
* Revisit the Week 2 readings and/or (if you're working on a systems paper) the Zhang reading from Week 6. All have valuable tips on writing effective introductions and (in some cases) conclusions.
+
 
 
 
'''Assignment:'''
 
'''Assignment:'''
* Pick two articles (two from one or one from each) from the [https://academic.oup.com/joc/issue/69/2 April, 2019 issue] of ''Journal of Communication'' (Volume 69, Issue 2) OR [https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3173574 CHI 2018] (or CHI 2019 if the proceedings appear in time).
+
* Pick two articles from the [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.2016.66.issue-1/issuetoc February, 2016 issue] of ''Journal of Communication'' (Volume 66, Issue 1) or two papers from [http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2858036 CHI 2016] (or one from each).  
** If you choose CHI pieces, try to pick a full paper that won an award. Please do not choose a Note or a Panel or something else that is not a full, peer reviewed paper.  
+
** If you choose JoC pieces, do not pick the Vorderer article. Do not pick a book review.
* Read the Introduction and Conclusion for both articles (ideally, don't read anything else — not even the abstract!) and prepare responses to the following questions (no need to submit):
+
** If you choose CHI pieces, do not choose a Note or a Panel or something else that is not a full, peer reviewed paper.  
 +
* Read the Introduction and Conclusion for both articles (ideally, don't read anything else — not even the abstract!) and respond to the following questions ([https://canvas.northwestern.edu/ in writing, submitted via Canvas]):
 +
#Provide a link/citation to the paper.
 
#Briefly summarize the papers' respective central claims, evidence, and contributions in your own words.
 
#Briefly summarize the papers' respective central claims, evidence, and contributions in your own words.
 
#According to Little's templates (See above), what type of introduction does each paper have?
 
#According to Little's templates (See above), what type of introduction does each paper have?
Line 220: Line 200:
 
#For the same article (your favorite), what suggestions would you make to the author(s) for improving the introduction? the conclusion?
 
#For the same article (your favorite), what suggestions would you make to the author(s) for improving the introduction? the conclusion?
 
#What can you take away from this favorite article for introducing/concluding your own work?
 
#What can you take away from this favorite article for introducing/concluding your own work?
* Write an introduction for your project and submit it to [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/91705/discussion_topics/597422 the corresponding "Discussion" on Canvas]. Keep the Introduction under 600 words. Have it reflect your anticipated findings and contribution (from last week's assignment).
+
* Write an introduction for your project and submit it to [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/ the corresponding "Discussion" on Canvas]. Keep the Introduction under 600 words. Have it reflect your anticipated findings and contribution (from last week's assignment).
 
* Provide feedback on your partner's Introduction.
 
* Provide feedback on your partner's Introduction.
  
 
=== Week 8: May 20 — Revise, revise, revise ===
 
=== Week 8: May 20 — Revise, revise, revise ===
* [[Practice_of_scholarship_(Spring_2019)/Week 8 session plan|Session plan]]
 
 
'''Reading:'''
 
'''Reading:'''
 
* Becker, Chapter 3 ("One Right Way") and Chapter 4 ("Editing by Ear").
 
* Becker, Chapter 3 ("One Right Way") and Chapter 4 ("Editing by Ear").
* ''Optional'': Becker, Howard. 1953. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2771989.pdf "Becoming a Marihuana User."](pdf) ''American Journal of Sociology'', ''(59)''3: 235-242. (Revisit this and focus on the writing).
 
 
* Strunk & White. Chapter 2 ("Elementary Principles of Composition") and Chapter 5 ("An Approach to Style").
 
* Strunk & White. Chapter 2 ("Elementary Principles of Composition") and Chapter 5 ("An Approach to Style").
* Wajcman, Judy. 2019. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918795041 The Digital Architecture of Time Management]. ''Science, Technology, & Human Values'', ''44''(2), 315–337.
 
  
 
'''Assignment:'''
 
'''Assignment:'''
<!--- * Revision assignment: Using Becker and Strunk & White as inspirations, please TBA prepare to line-edit the rough draft texts that Aaron circulates via email/canvas (one by TBA [link] and one by [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/ Aaron]). Read them, maybe bring a hard copy with you if you like to edit that way. In class, we will focus on improving the tone, style, and organization of the texts. --->
+
* Revision assignment: Using Becker and Strunk & White as inspirations, please TBA <!--- prepare to line-edit the rough draft texts that Aaron circulates via email/canvas (one by TBA [link] and one by [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/ Aaron]). Read them, maybe bring a hard copy with you if you like to edit that way.---> In class, we will focus on improving the tone, style, and organization of the texts.
 
* Work on accomplishing your goals for your final project for this week (''no written assignment to submit or provide feedback on''). Note that you will be asked to provide an update on your progress to your discussant from the May 17 class.
 
* Work on accomplishing your goals for your final project for this week (''no written assignment to submit or provide feedback on''). Note that you will be asked to provide an update on your progress to your discussant from the May 17 class.
  
Line 238: Line 215:
  
 
=== Week 10: June 3 — Submission, reviews, and revision in publication ===
 
=== Week 10: June 3 — Submission, reviews, and revision in publication ===
* [[Practice_of_scholarship_(Spring_2019)/Week 9 session plan|Session plan]]
 
 
'''Reading:'''
 
'''Reading:'''
 
* King, Brayden. 2011. [https://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/the-editors-speak-what-makes-a-good-review/ "The editors speak: what makes a good review?] (read the entire post and all the statements from the journal editors). ''OrgTheory''.
 
* King, Brayden. 2011. [https://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/the-editors-speak-what-makes-a-good-review/ "The editors speak: what makes a good review?] (read the entire post and all the statements from the journal editors). ''OrgTheory''.
 
* Elmqvist, Niklas. 2016. [https://sites.umiacs.umd.edu/elm/2016/11/19/writing-rebuttals/ Writing rebuttals].  
 
* Elmqvist, Niklas. 2016. [https://sites.umiacs.umd.edu/elm/2016/11/19/writing-rebuttals/ Writing rebuttals].  
* Sample paper(s) with sample reviews and sample response(s) to reviews.
+
* Sample paper(s) with sample reviews and sample response(s) to reviews (TBD).
** [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/files/7032806/download?download_frd=1 ICWSM reviews example] (from Yixue and Nick Diakopoulos)
 
** [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/files/7032799/download?download_frd=1 ''Communication Research'' submission/review example materials] (from Aaron and Mako Hill)
 
  
 
'''Assignment:'''
 
'''Assignment:'''
Line 251: Line 225:
 
=== Week 11: June 10 — Final projects due ===
 
=== Week 11: June 10 — Final projects due ===
  
No class meeting today. Submit your final projects [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/91705/assignments/575733 via Canvas].
+
No class meeting today. Submit your final projects via Canvas.
  
 
== Resources ==
 
== Resources ==

Please note that all contributions to CommunityData are considered to be released under the Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported (see CommunityData:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)