前些时,讨论学者型编辑和倡导学者型编辑的声调比较高,其针对性是有感于目前编辑由于专业知识的贫乏或无知而带来的诸如被动、误取、肤浅、失范等职业弊病的普遍性。后来,又有人从更为本位的立场出发对此稍加修正,谓为编辑型学者的出现为更好。我认同后者。尽管这两种类型的知识结构对组织选题和编辑图书都是利器在手,但是,编辑除了是一种职业外,终究也还算是一门“专业”。对于编书的人来讲,确实需要用这样的专业识度来整合、处理和包装各种选题中包含着 Earlier, the tone of discussion on scholarly editorials and advocacy scholarly editors was relatively high. The pertinence was due to the occupational shortcomings of current editors, such as passiveness, misreading, superficialness, and atrophy, which were caused by the current editor’s lack of professional knowledge or ignorance The universality. Later, some people revised it from a more fundamental standpoint, saying that the emergence of editorial scholars is better. I agree with the latter. Although both types of knowledge structures are instrumental in organizing topics and editing books, editing is, after all, a “profession” after all. For those who compile the book, really need to use this professional knowledge to integrate, handle and package a variety of topics include