An American Editor

August 1, 2011

The Changing Face of Editing

At one time in my career as an editor my function was crystal clear: everyone understood and agreed on the role a copyeditor played in the publishing business. But as the years have passed and the traditional publishing industry has consolidated into six megacorporations whose decisions are made based on bean counting, what was once clearcut has become fogged.

(For an overview of the various editorial roles, see Editor, Editor, Everywhere an Editor.)

This was brought to mind the other day when I was contacted by a client to copyedit a new medical book. The client’s inquiry included these points:

<Name> has recommended you for a new title, which requires copyediting, and we need someone who is a subject matter expert in physiology with a strong science background to copy edit this book, as some sections may need to be rewritten.

Language edit required: Yes (Many of contributors are not English speaker so will need copy edited pretty closely for language, especially for the chapters written by a non English speaker)

(Emphasis supplied.) The project was approximately 600 pages and needed to be completed within three weeks. The client estimated that the editing could be completed in 92 hours. The fee? The standard copyediting fee.

I declined the project for several reasons. Here is my written response:

I appreciate you and <name> thinking of us for this project, but I don’t think we fit your needs for three reasons. First, none of us are subject-matter experts in physiology. We are very experienced medical copyeditors, but that is not the same as having expertise in a particular subject area.

Second, you mention rewriting sections. That is the job of a developmental editor, not a copyeditor. Although we can do developmental editing, our fee is significantly higher for doing so, especially if English is not the native language of the original authors. Copyeditors work under the guise that the project has already been developmental edited and although they may change a sentence or two for tense or ease of reading, copyeditors do not rewrite paragraphs and sections.

Finally, if a project needs developmental work (again, especially if English is not the original authors’ native language), I think the schedule you propose is too tight for normal working hours. I’m not clear on how you came up with your estimate of 92 hours being needed to do the job, but that equates to approximately 6 pages an hour (using your stated number of pages as 549; we always reserve the right to verify the page count based on our agreement with <client>), which, in my experience over 27 years of medical editing, is much too high if rewriting is required (again, especially if English is not the original authors’ native language). Rewriting work under such circumstances more often than not works out to an editing rate of 2 to 3 pages an hour.

I didn’t bother emphasizing that the fee was inadequate for a developmental edit, which clearly was the level of editing expected. And it also needs to be remembered that in addition to doing the editorial work — grammar, spelling, syntax, etc. — the copyeditor also needs to code every element of the manuscript for typesetting, often by applying a template and tags.

This request is typical of the inquiries I am receiving (and have been receiving for quite some time). It is not enough for editors to be proficient in the tools of editing; editors are expected to rewrite and to have subject-matter expertise.

I have edited thousands of books over the course of my 27 years as an editor, but I don’t believe that turns me into a subject-matter expert. True I have greater familiarity on a broad level with the subject matter, but expertise is gotten by a combination of specialized training and practical experience, not just reading: Simply because I have edited hundreds of medical books does not qualify me to be a doctor.

The demand for greater expertise and for higher-level service is a result of bean counting. When I began my career, publishers had a budget line for developmental editing and a separate budget line for copyediting. It was expected by everyone in the publishing loop that a project would go to copyediting only after it had been developmentally edited. But in the press to reduce costs and increase profits, the segregation of the tasks has slowly disappeared and now everything that can be called editing is bunched together under the name copyediting. (Worth noting is that copyediting is a less costly budget line than developmental editing, thus the merger of developmental editing into copyediting rather than vice versa.)

This merger by publishers is also reflected in dissatisfaction expressed by authors over the editing that is done. Authors see the edited manuscript either as proof pages or as marked up copy (usually using Word’s track changes). The real problem is when authors first see the edited version in proof pages, without the benefit of seeing all the work that the editor did clearly defined. Authors tend to see every error that remains as a major error and vocally complain. They forget that the purpose of proof is to catch the errors that slipped past during copyediting or that may have been introduced during the copyediting and typesetting processes.

The balance is off-kilter. The expectations of authors and publishers soar as the various editorial roles are blended, yet the output of the editors cannot keep up with those expectations for numerous reasons, not least of which are insufficient time allocated by the client to do the tasks and inadequate compensation.

It isn’t clear to me what an editor can do in the face of these changes. Today, editors are caught between the increased demands of clients and the increased competition among editors for work. The one thing there is no shortage of is the number of people who call themselves editors; the number of “editors” rises daily, and as that number increases, there is a downward pressure applied to compensation and an upward pressure applied to the number of tasks expected to be performed by the editor — too many editors are competing for that shrinking pot of available work.

Little by little the face of editing is changing. Whether it is really for the better for anyone — author, publisher, or editor — is questionable. Editing is a hands-on task that requires sufficient time and expertise to do competently, let alone well, yet all parties are losing sight of this, as the growing requirements with reduced time allocations attest.

7 Comments

  1. […] Link to the rest at The American Editor […]

    Like

    Pingback by The Changing Face of Editing | The Passive Voice — August 2, 2011 @ 8:06 am

  2. […] With free as the selling price, much of what traditional publishing provided has had to be put to the side. For example, editing and proofreading, services traditionally associated with book publishers as part of the package provided to authors, become nonexistent. With no income, it becomes unjustifiable to spend, and previously required and desired editorial services become options that the author can pay for or not, with not generally being the response. (See, e.g., the discussions in, Is There a Future in Editing?, Competing with Free: eBooks vs. eBooks, and The Changing Face of Editing.) […]

    Like

    Pingback by Clashing Perspectives: Coming Home to Roost « An American Editor — August 29, 2011 @ 4:08 am

  3. […] With free as the selling price, much of what traditional publishing provided has had to be put to the side. For example, editing and proofreading, services traditionally associated with book publishers as part of the package provided to authors, become nonexistent. With no income, it becomes unjustifiable to spend, and previously required and desired editorial services become options that the author can pay for or not, with not generally being the response. (See, e.g., the discussions in, Is There a Future in Editing?, Competing with Free: eBooks vs. eBooks, and The Changing Face of Editing.) […]

    Like

    Pingback by Can Authors Survive Ebooks? Rich Adin's Thoughts On This | eBookanoid.com — August 29, 2011 @ 5:19 pm

  4. […] With free as the selling price, much of what traditional publishing provided has had to be put to the side. For example, editing and proofreading, services traditionally associated with book publishers as part of the package provided to authors, become nonexistent. With no income, it becomes unjustifiable to spend, and previously required and desired editorial services become options that the author can pay for or not, with not generally being the response. (See, e.g., the discussions in, Is There a Future in Editing?, Competing with Free: eBooks vs. eBooks, and The Changing Face of Editing.) […]

    Like

    Pingback by Ebooks and ereaders, can authors survive them? Rich Adin’s reaction to my post | Ebooks on Crack — August 29, 2011 @ 7:26 pm

  5. […] With free as the selling price, much of what traditional publishing provided has had to be put to the side. For example, editing and proofreading, services traditionally associated with book publishers as part of the package provided to authors, become nonexistent. With no income, it becomes unjustifiable to spend, and previously required and desired editorial services become options that the author can pay for or not, with not generally being the response. (See, e.g., the discussions in, Is There a Future in Editing?, Competing with Free: eBooks vs. eBooks, and The Changing Face of Editing.) […]

    Like

    Pingback by Clashing perspectives: coming home to roost | Ebooks on Crack — August 30, 2011 @ 7:19 pm

  6. Thank you for a comprehensive discussion on the evolution of editing. I wanted to become an editor, professionally. Somehow, I am still on my way to it. As a book interior designer, I found myself caught between editing a wrongly spelled word every now and then. I know editing is way more than that. My point is, I understand your contention and the need for better skilled if not better trained editors. I could declare myself an editor but I won’t do that. My respect to an editor is greater than an author (well, it depends since I love to read). We can all write but the editor does the cleaning.

    I am applying for a developmental editing position and no, I don’t know what it is until this very day, a sad truth. However, thanks to you for sharing your sentiments. I have to do my homework so I can be the editor like the old school.

    Namaste!

    Like

    Comment by nowwhatsmyname — May 18, 2012 @ 2:50 am

  7. It is heartening just to read a voice crying out in favor of the kind of quality that publishers used to consider themselves responsible to provide and pay people to produce–standards that go back a long way in time.

    Unfortunately all professional work now is declining in remuneration and standards, due to the intense pressure on it of neoliberal capitalism, which treats human beings as commodities whose value is precisely equivalent to the profit their owners can extract from them. When no gain remains to be extracted, the used-up human being is thrown onto the trash heap. And this is considered not just defendable, but the right thing to do. I do not think I exaggerate.

    I believe that until enough people grasp that this is a program that is being imposed on humanity globally, and that neoliberalism, left to its own devices, can only continue to destroy what we have called civilization until no vestige of it is left, there will be little hope of a reversal of course. Right now, unfortunately too many people above a certain income level are simply unaware of the nature of the threat to their livelihoods and quality of life, or if they are, continue to hope that the rising flood of impoverishment will not actually reach their own doorsteps. But without a full understanding of this larger picture and the magnitude of the forces at work, which have been at work for decades now, one cannot begin to see any real way to counteract them.

    And I believe that as long as the majority remain enamored of the brave new world of the wonderful devices that enable people to do things more and more efficiently as obedient working machines, the downward spiral of continuing compromise of quality (and humanity) in order to “stay competitive”–which really just means fending off (not just monetary) bankruptcy as long as one still has a little bit to hold onto, until even that is taken away–will continue and will continue to increase its pace.

    I take a perverse satisfaction, as an editor, in the fact that it is still possible, i believe, to edit text in less time on hard copy than on a machine. And yes, we love our devices and our internet, they help us “maximize” our “efficiency,” they are fun and enchanting. But we editors do know that, at least, no computer will ever be able to do our job. This must frustrate the efficiency barons in achieving their program to some extent, and i admit to taking some joy in that.

    And so your careful, patient analysis in this post of just two unfortunate sentences contains within it the entire truth of the present tenuous situation of humanity and our planet. Thank you for that!

    Like

    Comment by aletheia33 — December 12, 2016 @ 12:52 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this:
https://americaneditor.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/the-changing-face-of-editing/?like_comment=2546&_wpnonce=030ae650a5
americaneditor.wordpress.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-40
86111
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:QRS5ZFATVFBCY2BMPRT67OOQCRWRHAOC
<urn:uuid:30d57dc5-ae5c-4691-99ae-66c455726d48>
2020-09-20T17:05:51Z
192.0.78.13
application/xhtml+xml
sha1:53BVRDNIGIXGZEL2FNIMBWXQKEOYZEW4
<urn:uuid:2a212263-12f4-4f41-b880-23f452ba1ee4>
https://americaneditor.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/the-changing-face-of-editing/?like_comment=2546&_wpnonce=030ae650a5
response
<urn:uuid:ca063301-8065-4ed0-ae18-ffd40eeaf4a4>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-40
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-127.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/