Another Peek Behind the Curtain: Copy Editing

In an earlier blog post, I described how I approach developmental editing. Here, I discuss my strategies for copy editing a manuscript. My purpose is two-fold: (1) to give readers a sense of how a copy editor works (or at least how this copy editor works) and (2) to provide writers with a structure for editing their own manuscripts. As someone who makes her living as an editor, I believe professional copy editors serve a critical role in the publishing industry. At the same time, I think writers do themselves a vital service when they become good editors of their own work.

When I copy edit a manuscript, I typically make about five passes before returning it to the author. I complete the first two steps on a hard copy before completing the editing process on screen.

Step 1. My first pass through a manuscript involves cross-checking in-text citations against the reference list. Here, I note discrepancies in spelling, author order, dates, etc. I also note whether references are missing from the list. I make corrections to in-text and reference list entries at this point—or at least make a note to myself if I want to double-check the citation information or need to confirm the appropriate format in my style manual. When I have finished, I put a question mark by any entries in the reference list that I haven’t checked off. I’ll run a find for those in the electronic copy at a later step. For a longer manuscript, I cross-check the table of contents, list of tables and figures, etc., against the text and note any discrepancies.

The first pass gives me a general sense of the content and organization of a manuscript and allows me to make notes about formatting changes that might be needed (e.g., applying consistent heading styles throughout).

Step 2. I read and edit the manuscript in hard copy. Here are some of the more common changes that I make:

• Spelling out numbers or converting spelled out numbers to numerals

• Recasting sentences to avoid starting with a number

• Fixing spelling errors or replacing the wrong word for the correct one (e.g., there/their, then/than)

• Changing verb tense or form

• Reducing wordiness (e.g., “practitioners who are oftentimes having to respond” becomes “practitioners often respond”)

• Fixing punctuation errors (i.e., adding/deleting commas, changing hyphens to en-dashes, adding/deleting hyphens, adding periods, fixing comma splices, removing unnecessary quotation marks)

• Correcting capitalization errors

I also make notes in the margin when the writer’s meaning is unclear, a quote seems to have a transcription error, or terms are used inconsistently throughout the manuscript or may need to be defined. Sometimes, I will make the necessary edits, but in many cases, I jot down a query for the author.

For quantitative manuscripts, I ensure that all tables and figures have been referenced in the text, are numbered and formatted correctly, and have titles and the necessary notes. If the author references data in the text, I cross-check it against any data display to make sure they match. If numbers don’t add up or are inconsistent, I make a note to query the author.

Step 3. Once I have finished this initial read, I am ready to work with the electronic file. If the file requires formatting or I want to make a universal change (e.g., changing two spaces after a period to one for APA style), I’ll make those edits silently (i.e., without tracking changes). I make all other edits with Track Changes on and use the comment feature to add queries for the writer or explain changes I have made. In this step, I essentially transfer the edits from my hard copy to the electronic file. I also make more complex edits (e.g., recasting an unclear or awkward sentence, reordering a paragraph to improve flow) that I had noted but not accomplished in hard copy.

Okay, I’m sure some folks would say, “Hey, you’re just doing extra work here. Why not just make all the edits in the electronic copy in the first instance?” The reality is that sometimes I do, especially if I am working with a very short manuscript. But I find cross-referencing elements of the manuscript is much easier to do in hard copy than on screen. I also see errors on paper that I might miss on screen. Finally, the two-step process gives me time to pause before making changes to someone’s manuscript. Frequently, I get to a sentence that I thought was hopelessly muddled on the first read that becomes clear to me as I try to work out an edit. I may have marked something for a universal change only to think better of it when working with the electronic file. In short, taking these two separate passes helps me be more conservative in the changes I make to a manuscript. It also saves me the work of undoing edits I think better of later.

Step 4. After I have entered my edits and queries for the author, I switch to simple markup (i.e., track changes are hidden) and open Grammarly. I use this app primarily to help identify issues that I might not have seen in my first read and to highlight inadvertent errors introduced during the previous step. Grammarly isn’t full proof, but it is more sensitive than built-in grammar/spell checkers. For example, it will highlight inconsistent capitalization (e.g., University vs. university) and punctuation (e.g., US vs. U.S.) in the file. It is also more sophisticated in pointing out spelling errors, suggesting an alternative based on the context. For example, recently, I typed “out” in a manuscript when I meant “our.” Word’s spell check didn’t highlight this as a problem obviously, but Grammarly noted it as a possible error and suggested a suitable replacement.

Step 5. As a final step, I read the edited manuscript with all the tracked changes hidden. Here, I am reading to ensure that the edits were entered and worked as intended. Invariably, I see something that escaped my attention during my initial read. If I have inserted any queries to myself, I delete those. I also review queries I’ve included for the writer to ensure that they make sense.

Is this process foolproof? No. Invariably, I'll miss something (like typing "full proof" rather than "foolproof" when I first published this post). Still, this systematic approach to editing helps me produce extremely clean copy that communicates the writer’s intent to their audience clearly and economically.

Taking a multi-stage approach to the editing and proofreading phase of manuscript creation can also help writers produce manuscripts that will be reviewed more favorably by committees, colleagues, and review boards.

What strategies are you using to edit and proofread your work? Would hiring a professional editor give you greater confidence in the finished product?