dragonfly editorial

Archive for the ‘Editorial process’ Category

Listening to the experts

Monday, April 27th, 2009

Traveling this week to the American Urological Association (AUA) annual conference in Chicago . . . it’s an overwhelming experience. I’m one small copyeditor in the midst of some 14,000 urologists. The program book for the conference tops 300 pages; McCormick Place, where the conference is being held, covers 2.6 million square feet.

I’m here to meet with the editorial staff of European Urology, a leading medical journal and one of our super-favorite customers. EU is published by Elsevier for the European Association of Urology, and has editorial offices in Milan and production offices in the Netherlands. So it’s a bit easier for me to meet everyone here, rather than in their home offices.

I’m also here to learn. Although you don’t need to have medical training to be a medical editor, it helps. I think that anything you can do to increase your understanding of the material you edit improves your work and reduces your chance of making errors. To whit:

You understand the subject matter more thoroughly, so you can edit more quickly and efficiently
You’re less likely to be confused by the content, so you wind up writing fewer unnecessary author queries — reducing bother to the customer and again, saving time
You better understand the authors’ jargon, so you’re less likely to unintentionally change the author’s meaning while editing — the cardinal sin of any editor or proofreader.

So, for the next three days, I’ll be missing my family, but soaking in all the information I can on the treatment of prostate cancer and urothelial cancers, and conditions like overactive bladder syndrome, lower urinary tract symptoms, chronic pelvic pain, stress urinary incontinence, varicocele, and infertility. Wish me luck.

Posted in Editorial process, Medical editing | 1 comment »

Don’t Pass on the Second Pass

Friday, March 6th, 2009

Most professional editors make at least two passes through any document they’re reviewing.

In most cases, the first pass consists of slowly, carefully scrubbing the text to enhance readability and to ensure correct spelling, grammar, punctuation, and style.

The second pass is usually done at a “reader’s pace” rather than an “editor’s pace,” and it consists of catching any snafus, typos, or awkwardnesses that were missed — or introduced — during the first pass.

Copyeditors skip the second pass at their own peril. Recently, for example, I discovered all the following typos during my second pass through a document.

the spore place in my armpit [read: the sore place]
They boy laughed delightedly. [read: the boy}
If I had been told him about our courtship . . . [read: If I had told him . . .]
In a careful and discrete way . . . [read: a careful and discreet way]
You were brave girl. Well done. [read: You were brave, girl.]
Seeing the dark visage portrayed on the canvass . . . [read: on the canvas]
Drums beat, bells peeled, and men hurried to the green. [read: bells pealed]

Had I not performed the copyeditor’s customary second pass and caught these typos, my client would have been justified in gently (or not-so-gently) declining to use my services in the future.

Posted in Editorial process, Land of Typos, Why editors exist | 1 comment »

Editors with an attitude (not good)

Wednesday, September 10th, 2008

Been thinking about an article I read a couple of weeks ago about the so-called “Typo Eradication Advancement League (TEAL).”

TEAL is nothing but two guys, Jeff Deck and Benjamin Herson, who’ve spent the past summer traveling the United States and correcting typos on public signage. Things you see all the time, like “Bobs Donuts” instead of “Bob’s Donuts.” The duo were finally sanctioned for correcting (read: defacing) a historic sign at the Grand Canyon National Park.

I finally realized what had been bugging me about this story. The way I see things, copyeditors aren’t supposed to call attention to themselves. We’re not supposed run around, waving our arms, making a big deal out of writers’ errors. And we’re certainly not supposed to make the writers we work with feel stupid.

Instead, we’re supposed to work in the background, helping our writers express their ideas as clearly as possible. Getting rid of mistakes that might block a reader’s comprehension. Then fading into the background, and letting the writer–and his or her ideas–shine.

A copyeditor who wants to be the story, rather than craft the story, just might be in the wrong profession.

Posted in Editorial process, Editorial style, Freelance editing | 2 comments »

The high cost of cheap copyediting

Friday, May 2nd, 2008

Oh, dear.

Princeton University Press is recalling all copies of one of its spring titles after discovering more than 90 spelling and grammar errors in the 245-page work. The book, Cop in the Hood: My Year Policing Baltimoreâ€™s Eastern District, by Peter Moskos, was published May 1 in an initial press run of 4,000 copies.

Believe it or not, the press is pulling all copies of the book, correcting and reprinting it, and redistributing it to stores. Any ideas on what that’s going to cost?

According the Peter Dougherty, the pressâ€™s director, the manuscript “had been given to an inexperienced copy editor who failed to do the job properly.” He claims to be “flabbergasted and embarrassed.”

Hmm.

For years, the world’s most prestigious publishers have been getting away with paying peanuts to their freelance copyeditors and proofreaders, with pay rates languishing in the teens or low twenties at best. Is it any surprise, then, that the “inexperienced copy editor” who took this job missed a host of errors? Most senior editors — who have the experience needed to do this type of work — just won’t work anymore for what the publishers are paying.

Furthermore, this *scandal* suggests another, equally serious gap in Princeton U’s editorial process.

Most manuscripts go through at least three passes before going to press — a developmental edit, a copyedit, and a proofread. It’s not unreasonable for a few errors to be missed during copyediting, especially on a complex or error-ridden manuscript. But those mistakes are customarily found and fixed during proofreading.

Is Princeton U also trying to save money buy cutting proofreading out of the process? If so, the results of the cost-cutting speak for themselves.

Posted in Editorial process, Proofreading, Why editors exist | Comments Off

Blog Headlines

view archives

What do our clients think?

Press Releases