Differences between Editors Canada’ PES (2009) and PES (2016)

Because Editors Canada’s Guidelines for Ethical Editing of Theses / Dissertations is still in the process of being updated, it is still citing the 2009 version of the Professional Editorial Standards (PES). Some rules in PES (2009), however, have been renumbered in PES (2016), so it is not really possible to understand the Guidelines with just a current copy of the PES.

In order to allow others to understand the Guidelines with just a copy of PES (2016), I did a quick comparison of the two standards. The changes I was able to identify are summarized below:

Differences in numbering between PES (2009) and PES (2016)
PES (2009)PES (2016)Notes
-New rule A11.1Reference to “A2–A12” (in Part 1) would include this new rule
A11.1A11.2No impact on the Guidelines
A11.2A11.3No impact on the Guidelines
A11.3A11.4No impact on the Guidelines
A11.4A11.5No impact on the Guidelines
-New rules B3, B4No impact on the Guidelines
B3B5
B4B6
B5B7
B6B8
B7B9
B8B10
B9B11
B10B12
B11B13
B12B14
-New rule C1Guidelines cites old C1 (i.e., C2 in PES, 2016)
C1C2
C2C3
C3C4
C4C5
C5C6
C6C7
C7C8
C8Merged into C9
C9
D5D8
D6D9
D7D10
D8D11
D9D12
D10D13
D11Split into D5, D6Also possible that the new D6 is a new rule
D12D7
D13D14
D14D15
D15D16
D16D17
D17D18
D18D19
-New rules E6, E7Guidelines cites old E6, E7 (i.e., E8, E9 in PES, 2016)
E6E8
E7Merged into E9
E8E10
E9E11
E10E12
E11Merged into E9
E12E13
E13E14
E14E15
E15E16
E16E17
E17E18
E18E19

I hope this information is useful, but these findings are unofficial, and I have not thoroughly checked my work.

Comments are closed.