Should a proofreader work for self-publishing clients who haven’t hired a copy-editor?

In this article, I take a look at proofreading for self-publishers, and the conundrum that can arise when the author hasn't invested in previous rounds of editing.

If you’re a proofreader, it’s likely that you’ve been asked to proofread for a self-publishing author who hasn’t had their work taken through professional substantive, line and copy-editing. I certainly have.

This situation may have arisen for one of several reasons:
​​

• The author understands that there are different levels of editing, but only wishes to work with a proofreader. (I've been hired as a proofreader to work for a number of, frankly, excellent writers who were adamant that they were happy to go straight to proofreading.)
• The author understands that there are different levels of editing, but decides they can’t afford to, or aren't prepared to, invest in more than one. (In this situation, I never push the point or ask for details – it's not my business how they choose to spend their hard-earned income.)
• The author doesn’t understand the differences between, for example, line editing, copy-editing, structural editing and proofreading, and assumes that a proofreader will be able to do all of these things so that the writing is fit for publication according to industry standards.

So, if he or she wishes to, should a proofreader work with clients who fall into the above categories? Before answering that question, it’s worth considering what we mean when we use terms to describe editorial skillsets, and whether our clients have the same understanding.

Redefining proofreading
Says the Society for Editors and Proofreaders (SfEP), “After material has been copy-edited, the publisher sends it to a designer or typesetter. Their work is then displayed or printed, and that is the proof – proof that it is ready for publication. Proofreading is the quality check and tidy-up” (“FAQs: What is proofreading”, SfEP).

Of note is the fact that the proofreader is not directly editing the files; rather, we are annotating them (this applies to both paper proofs and PDFs). See “Not all proofreading is the same: Part I – Working with page proofs” (Proofreader’s Parlour) for a more comprehensive discussion of the process of traditional proofreading.

However, these days, many clients such as academics, businesses and independent, self-publishing authors want something rather different. Often, they’ll supply raw-text files and want the proofreader to directly amend the text.

They may ask the proofreader to format the various text elements, make the majority of style decisions, even tweak awkward sentences. This is referred to as proof-editing in some professional editorial circles.

In such cases, “[t]he proofreader has to explore what is required and negotiate a budget and schedule that allow for more editorial decisions and intervention” (“FAQs: What is proofreading”, SfEP).

Client understandings and usage
Those of us who own our own editorial businesses recognize that the professional terminology we use to communicate how we can solve a client’s problems doesn’t always match the client's understanding and usage. Consider the following:

• The term “proofreading” is widely recognized and used by those outside the publishing industry, though frequently means something very different from the traditional definition.
• The term “copy-editing” is perhaps not quite as well recognized or as well used as the term “proofreading” by those outside the publishing industry (though, as the self-publishing community becomes increasingly well educated about the publishing process, this is changing), but there is a closer match between publishing- and nonpublishing-industry definitions when the term is used. 
• The term “proof-editing” is not yet recognized, and is rarely, if ever, used by those outside the publishing industry. (Try searching for the term on Google and you’ll see what I mean.)

It’s for that reason that I don’t use the term “proof-editing” on my website to describe the service I offer to self-publishing authors, even though it’s exactly what I do for many of them. Instead, I offer them a “proofreading” service and I refer to myself as a “proofreader”.
​
In contrast, when publishers contact me about proofreading work, I know I’m usually going to be working with page proofs and that my brief will, broadly speaking, require me to carry out the kinds of pre-publication checks that proofreading, traditionally defined, demands.

Should the proofreader accept or decline non-edited proofreading work?
My view is that this is the wrong question. Rather, the questions should be:

• Is the client aware of the various levels of editing, and how each makes a difference to the journey of bringing the writing to publication stage?
• Has the proofreader seen the writing (or a substantial enough sample of it) in order to evaluate what the project will involve?
• Has the proofreader been absolutely clear about what he or she will or won’t do (or can or can't do) to the text supplied by the client, and does the client understand and accept this?

If the answer to those questions is yes, and the client and the proofreader agree mutually acceptable terms (of level of intervention, fee, schedule, etc.), I see no reason why a proofreader should not work for self-publishing authors who haven’t hired an editor beforehand.

Offering a professional service
Offering a professional editorial service involves:

• Understanding what the author is asking for.
• Understanding what you can and can’t do in terms of your own skillset.
• Evaluating the project’s content so that you are sure that what you can do fits with what the author has asked for.
• Ensuring the author is absolutely clear about what you can and can’t do, and how that will impact on their project.

Listening and talking to the client
If the author has commissioned a structural editor and copy-editor before hiring the proofreader, is the text in better shape?

Assuming these editors were competent professionals, I think that in almost all cases the answer is yes. However, that isn’t always what the client wants (and, occasionally, dare I say it, it may not even be what the client needs, though that is beyond the scope of this article).

​Here’s a fictive example, but one that I’m sure will chime with many of us in real-world practice.

• Author X contacts me with a request to proofread her novel. She includes a ten-chapter sample in her email and tells me that the book has undergone a series of read-throughs by a few friends (one of whom is an English teacher). She has also taken the work through several passes herself, but wants a fresh set of eyes on the file before she uploads it to Kindle Direct Publishing.
• I evaluate the sample Word file. It’s a 70,000-word historical romance novel. There are multiple problems – thousands of punctuation errors; hundreds of inconsistencies of hyphenation, and capitalization; throughout, tabs have been used instead of paragraph indents; the various elements of the text are styled inconsistently; running Paul Beverley’s ProperNounAlyse macro indicates that character names are spelled in different ways; spelling mistakes and inconsistencies abound; and some of the writing would benefit from some gentle and minimally invasive retweaking, especially with regard to mixed tenses … there’s more but let’s not labour the point. The primary issue here is that I can solve all of these problems.
• My reading of the first chapter alone highlights another problem, though – point of view. The author has struggled to convey clearly whose head we’re in as we’re reading, rendering the text rather confusing and clunky at times. The primary issue here is that I have no idea how to solve this problem with either artistry or elegance. My client needs a good editor because this is something I can’t fix with my proofreading hat on. And, in my case, I don’t have another hat to hand.

The thing about me is that I know how to drive a car, keep it clean, ensure the oil is topped up, mend a broken headlight, and change a tyre. I also know when the brakes aren’t working properly. However, I don’t have the skill to fix the brakes – for that, I need a qualified mechanic.

What do I do?

• I advise the author that, as a proofreader, I can clean her car, change her oil, and fix the flat tyre and the headlight, but I can’t mend the busted brakes. She’s going to need someone else to do that.
• I refer her to my Guidelines for New Authors, where she can read more detailed information about the different levels of editing.
• I ask her to review the Self-publishers page on my website where I outline exactly what I do.
• I also attach a generic PDF entitled “Proofreading process: A summary for independent authors”, which I created for self-publishing authors so that they understand, before work commences, exactly what I, as a proofreader, will and won’t do. Of particular note is that it spells out, in black and white, that I’m not a substantive or line editor and am not able to restructure or rewrite.
• I then quote her a fee based on proofreading (what we’d call proof-editing) her file according to the parameters of the service I can provide.
• Finally, I provide a link to my national editorial society’s directory so that, if she wishes, she can secure the services of an editor before moving to the proofreading stage.

What does she do?

• She thanks me for the really useful feedback.
• She tells me that this is her first attempt at fiction, that she’s gone as far as she can with the project at this stage, and that she wants to move on.
• She understands that her writing needs work and that she has a lot to learn, but she wishes to commission my proofreading services according to the parameters I’ve outlined and the fee I’ve quoted.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s a goer. I’ve made it clear what I can and can’t do. She’s made it clear what she wants. We’ve agreed terms.

Will the book be as good at it could have been? No. But she knows this. This is a journey for her, a first stage, an experiment. Right now, proofreading is good enough for her.

And it doesn’t actually matter whether someone else thinks she absolutely should have invested in an editor; she has the right to put her work out there anyway. She’s chosen to do so in a way that has attended to the micro issues that a proofreader deals with rather than the macro issues that an editor could have fixed. That’s her informed choice.

Me? I’m delighted to have secured a new client, and to work with her in the only way I’m able to – as a proofreader. I’ve done my best to provide guidance so that she’s better informed next time around, and I’ve respected her choices this time around. It’s a win–win.

This isn't always the outcome, of course. There will be times when the proofreader, after an assessment of the sample provided by the author, feels so overwhelmed by the task in hand that there is no option other than to decline the work. In this case, it is not in the best interests of either the proofreader or the client to proceed.

Cost-effective client education for the editorial business owner
One of the problems editorial professionals face is the cost-effectiveness of educating inexperienced authors. Time is money, and I’m running a business, not a charity. If I spend an hour providing one-on-one detailed guidance to a potential client, that time is unbillable.

And if that detailed guidance involves encouraging them to commission other editorial professionals who have the appropriate skillsets, and I’m successful in my recommendations, in effect I’m paying for a colleague to be hired. That’s great for the author, and great for the colleague, but for me it’s like throwing money out of the window – I could have used that hour to do paying work.

If that’s a problem you find yourself running into, consider creating generic resources that explain the issues at stake, and then refer your potential clients to them. This will enable you to reduce the amount of unbillable time that you spend on education.

​Placing those resources on your website will also reflect your willingness provide accessible value-added content that demonstrates professional expertise and the desire to help. Examples might include:

• A PDF and/or dedicated webpage that details the specific editorial services you provide – what they include, and what they don’t include. See, for example, the Kateproof page on proofreading for undergraduate and postgraduate students.
• Process documents – for example, my PDF entitled “Proofreading process: A summary for independent authors” provides an overview of the foundational principles of proofreading (more than typo spotting; do no harm; revision extent); the preliminary checks that I carry out (including basic styling, chapter-heading checks, variant-spelling analysis, style sheet creation, etc.); reading the text, page by page, line by line, word by word, looking for layout, spelling, punctuation and syntax errors within the framework of doing no harm; and the final steps (final page pass, review of the style sheet, creation of an additional “clean” file for a less cluttered view). You could create a generic process document for each of the editorial services you offer.
• Information on your website that enables a potential client to source editorial services that you don’t offer: See the KOKEdit Services page, for example, where editor Katharine O’Moore-Klopf offers to refer clients to colleagues with translation, medical writing, design, proofreading and indexing skills.
• Guidance on the different levels of editing: I include these in my free eblooklet, Guidelines for New Authors. See also the dameditors Services page, which includes a link to the EAC definitions of editorial skills, and Mary McCauley Proofreading’s FAQs, which include a link to the SfEP’s explanations of copy-editing and proofreading.

Summing up

• Not all independent authors will choose to invest in the services that editorial professionals would recommend.
• The author has the right to choose which services to commission.
• The editorial pro has the right to accept or decline a project. However, if they accept, they should ensure that all parties understand exactly what will/won’t or can/can’t be done.
• Providing detailed guidance to self-publishers, so that they can make informed decisions about which service to commission, is a valuable marketing tool when you provide the services you are recommending. On a one-on-one basis, it’s also time-consuming. Time is money, so when you don’t provide the services you are recommending, you’re being charitable.
• There is nothing wrong with being charitable – but be sure to consider it within the framework of your business accounting. Your time has a cost to it, which needs to be acknowledged – especially when that time could be used to carry out paying work.
• Consider developing efficient ways of communicating detailed guidance – generic documents, PDFs, web pages and resource hubs to which you can refer the independent author. That way, you get market your business with value-added content, educate the client, and spend more time on billable editorial work.

Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.

She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast.

Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.