At the risk of being unpopular, I am going to offer an alternative viewpoint. I edit for two pubs. We receive a range of articles from extremely sloppy to impeccably written. I offer detailed editing for articles that are sloppy. On the really good articles, I offer considerably less input. On those articles, I leave suggestions. I also have an automated script that leaves notes with low-hanging fruit like "please include a subtitle."

I am always amazed at how strongly some writers react to suggestions when worded mildly, like "we suggest that" or "you might want to look at." It's as if you're calling they're baby ugly.

Personally, I believe the goal of a pub is to help writers improve their content. Some writers don't need a lot of help; some do. I don't edit articles trying to be condescending or "I'm right, you're wrong." Compromise is always possible and outside of egregious mistakes, I *never* insist.

Some people are extremely grateful for the editing, and say so. Others seem to resent it.

I believe writers should look at the edits as constructive suggestions (outside of outright errors) which they may or may not choose to follow.

In short, I don't understand why this is an issue.