在20世纪80年代,有位专业出版社的领导人对我讲过一句说:“我们的编辑人员一向是坚持‘编校合一’的。”当时,该社分明配有专职校对人员,也设有校对科。这位领导人所以这样说,就是因为那里的编辑人员一向看自己编发稿的校样。难道仅仅因为编辑人员也看校样就是“编校合一”吗?对此,我是心存疑问的。到了90年代,我因工作关系接触到一些校对理论文章,逐渐认识到“编校合一”是一种体制,其基本内容是以编辑看校样来取代专职校对工作,从而取消专职校对人员,取消校对机构。1996年,我即以此意写了一篇题为《“编校合一”曲与直》的短文,发表在当年《中国出版》的第7期上,引起了一些同志的注意。 最近,我在出版类报刊看到一些涉及“编校合一”的文章。其中有不少观点我是赞同的,但也有些 In the 1980s, a leader of a professional publishing house told me: “Our editorial staff has always adhered to the principle of” editing and school integration. “At that time, the agency was well-equipped with full-time proof-reading staff as well as Proofreading section. This is what the leader put it because the editors there always read their proofs of compilation. Is it just because the editors also look at the school is ”editing and editing“ it? I am in doubt about it. In the 90s, I came into contact with some collation theoretical articles due to my working relationship. I came to realize that ”compiling and schooling together“ is an institution whose basic content is to edit proofs to replace full-time proofreading work, thus eliminating full-time proofreading personnel and canceling proofreading mechanism. In 1996, I just wrote an essay entitled ”Arrangement of“ Quotations and Straights ”, which was published in the seventh issue of“ China Publishing ”in that year, arousing the attention of some comrades. Recently, I have seen some articles in the publishing press that deal with “editing and schooling.” There are many opinions I agree with, but there are some