Let me offer a mock-up of the sorts of visible editing decisions I have in mind. I have attached a pdf of a recent per curiam opinion. Using Adobe Acrobat's tools, I made some deletions which are obvious for others to see. It strikes me that we need to know what editors cut. This example provides an easy way to "see" the choices we make and then evaluate them. Without knowledge of the parts removed (i.e., looking at a 'clean' document) we would be clueless as to the editorial decisions. I also added a note at the beginning of the opinion, again using Acrobat's commenting tool. This could be a way to document editorial decisions or to provide commentary by the editor. I'm not sure it is necessary, but it certainly is easy to use. My concern is to find some way to identify different versions of the same case so that we can distinguish Whittington's version from Schroeder's version. I also think we should probably not overwrite or delete versions once posted. Rather, we should find some way to keep and track versions. Editing is an iterative process. Sometimes, earlier versions are better than later versions. I welcome your comments and criticisms. -- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Ecartis -- -- Type: application/pdf -- File: garvey-edit1.pdf