Exercising the right to accept or decline work is, in my opinion, one of the best things about owning one’s own business. And yet some editorial professionals feel guilty about saying no. What's to be done?
Some of us have experienced a situation where we have to withdraw from an ongoing project because of what one of my colleagues calls “scope creep”.
Here, the originally agreed terms of the work have been breached by the client, rendering continuation of the project non-viable unless new terms can be negotiated that are acceptable to both parties. This demonstrates why it’s important to clarify the parameters of any editorial project before an agreement is made to carry out the work. How to pull out of existing project work is beyond the scope of this article. Here I’m focusing on saying no to the offer of editorial work prior to commencement of the project, and how guilt should not be part of the editorial business-owner’s decision to so. In Part I, I look at the reasons for accepting or declining work, how some editorial freelancers talk about feeling guilty, and how those statements stack up against the reality of what’s going on. In Part II, I’ll consider some simple ways of saying no that make it clear that the project is being declined, why this decision is being made, and what the client can do to find an alternative supplier. I’ll also explore the dangers of using an over-pricing strategy to deter an unwanted client, and consider how the guilt-ridden editorial pro might place her feelings within an adapted 10/10/10 framework in order to move forward with a decision that’s in her business's best interests.
Reasons to accept and reasons to decline
I might decline a proofreading project for one, or several, of the following reasons:
I might accept a proofreading project for one, or several, of the following reasons:
See also Liz Broomfield’s (2013) discussion of what kinds of work you might say no to at various stages of your business’s development.
It’s my business and my choice
Whether I accept or decline, the choice is mine. I’m not bound to carry out proofreading work that, for whatever reason, I don’t wish to. There’s no boss telling me that our company is contractually bound to do A or B, or that I must work for X, even though I find dealing with X stressful, intimidating, infuriating, or upsetting. I choose the hours I need/wish to work. I choose the type of editorial work I carry out (in my case, proofreading). I choose the material I feel comfortable with. I decide whether a fee is acceptable based on my needs and wants. Ultimately, I can decline a project for no other reason than I simply don’t fancy doing it. End of story.
Feeling guilty
Despite having control over the choices they can make, it’s not uncommon to hear editorial freelancers say they feel guilty about not accepting a job:
In all of the above, the story is of the problems being faced by the client if the editorial pro turns down the work. However, we as business owners need to flip things around and look at the situation from our own point of view.
The reality ...
Now let's look at the above 4 scenarios from the perspective of the editorial business owner:
No isn't negative ...
Psychologist Judith Sills (2013) argues that “No – a metal grate that slams shut the window between one's self and the influence of others – is rarely celebrated. It's a hidden power because it is both easily misunderstood and difficult to engage” and “it is easily confused with negativity”. So, when we decline work, we need think of the decision not in terms of negative impact on our clients, but rather in terms of the positive impact on our editorial businesses. In Part 2, we’ll look at ways to communicate an uncomplicated “no” message, and consider an adapted version of Suzy Welch’s 10/10/10 framework that should help the guilt-ridden editorial pro to say no with greater confidence.
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.
5 Comments
Do we still need to learn how to use traditional proof-correction symbols given that most proofreading work is done onscreen these days?
My answer is an emphatic “Yes, you should learn them!”
As I'll show below, knowing how to use them will increase your efficiency, productivity, clarity, marketability, and professionalism. Traditional proofreading: Checking typeset proofs Many proofreaders work directly in Word, making actual changes to the text. In my experience, it's primarily self-publishing authors, academics, students and businesses that commission such direct intervention; almost all of my publishers want me to use the proof-correction symbols. That’s because I’m not editing the text; rather, I’m annotating pages that have been professionally designed – the pages appear as I would expect to see them if I walked into a bookshop and pulled the published book from a shelf. In this situation, I'm not just looking for spelling and grammar mistakes. I also need to annotate for problems with layout, for example:
So, if you plan to work on page proofs that have been professionally typeset prior to publication, and you hope to acquire this work from mainstream publishing houses, you will need to know how to annotate the pages correctly with these symbols, even if you are proofreading onscreen. What do the marks look like? It depends where you live. If you need guidance about proof-correction marks in your particular region, contact your national editorial society. In some countries, the UK’s BSI marks are accepted for proofreading and copy-editing practice. In the UK, there is a single set of industry-recognized symbols. These have been prepared by the British Standards Institution (BSI) and are entitled “Marks for copy preparation and proof correction”. Over time they’ve been updated. The current marks are identified as follows: BS 5261C:2005. If you’re working for Canadian or US clients, read Adrienne Montgomerie’s article, “The Secret Code of Proofreaders” (Copyediting.com, 2014). As she points out, the Canadian Translation Bureau’s Canadian Style guide marks are quite different from the marks preferred by the Chicago Manual of Style. Why are proof-correction marks useful? When we proofread typeset page proofs, there’s little room to indicate what we want to change. Recall that each page we’re working on appears almost as it would if the printed book had been published. Using industry-standard proof-correction marks is an efficient way to annotate the page with the desired corrections. The symbols are a short-cut code of instructions that tell the designer exactly what to do. Once you’ve learned all the symbols by heart, they’re much quicker to use than long-hand text and take up minimal space. Open the nearest book you have to hand and look at how much white space there isn’t between the text and the margin – it’s not uncommon for me to work on page proofs with a 2cm margin either side of the text. Notice, too, how small the space is above and below a single line of text. The book has been designed and there's little room to annotate. Now imagine that in a given line there is a missing comma, a spelling mistake, and a word that needs decapitalizing. The example below illustrates how these problems would be marked up using the BSI proof-correction symbols. The long-hand alternative might be something on the lines of <Change “fax” to “fox”> in the left-hand margin, and <Insert comma after “grass” and decapitalize “Legs”> in the right-hand margin. Given that we only have 2cm margins to play with, that each line is spaced closely to its neighbours above and below, and that in a real set of proofs there may be several corrections in multiple lines, any instructions to the typesetter are likely to become cluttered and confusing. Proof-correction symbols solve the problem.
The use of proof-correction symbols therefore offers increased efficiency, productivity, and clarity. And if you’re a proofreader-to-be who wants to ensure you’re marketable to as wide a range of clients as possible, acquiring the ability to use this mark-up process is a no-brainer.
Attending to professional standards In addition to enabling you to work efficiently, productively, and clearly, and maximizing your marketability, there is also the issue of professionalism. Membership of a professional editorial society often requires knowledge of the relevant nationally approved mark-up symbols as a standard of good practice.
Where to find the UK marks The BSI provides a laminated 8-page summary sheet of all the marks you need to know for proofreading. Also included are short notes that enable the proofreader or copy-editor to identify the correct mark for both marginal and in-text mark-up, colour of ink to be used, and positioning of the symbols. The CIEP has an arrangement with the BSI whereby members can purchase the sheet for a reduced price. How to learn to use the marks Any comprehensive proofreading course worth its salt should test your ability to use the marks according to industry standards. It's not just about using the right mark so that the instruction is unambiguous, but also about knowing when to use the mark and when to leave well enough alone. In the UK, the CIEP and The Publishing Training Centre are examples of organizations offering industry-recognized courses that attend to these issues. If you live outside the UK, ask your national editorial society for guidance. Further reading If you’re considering embarking on a professional proofreading career, you might find the following related articles of use:
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.
Like so many of my proofreading and editing colleagues, I never rely on my eye alone. I’m human, and my eye sometimes sees what it wants to see rather than what’s there, even when I’m working with clients rather than reading for pleasure.
TextSTAT: Creating a frequency list
One of my favourite tools is TextSTAT. Actually, it wasn’t created with the proofreader or editor in mind. Rather, the program was designed to enable users to analyse texts for word frequency and concordance. However, I use it to generate, very quickly, simple alphabetized word lists.
Time and again, those word lists have flagged up potential problems that I need to check in a proofreading or copyediting project. If I'm proofreading a PDF, I strip the text from the PDF proof and dump it into a Word file. I remove word breaks from that Word file (using "-^p") so that TextSTAT generates a list of whole words that I can compare, rather than thousands of useless broken words). If I'm editing in Word, I can obviously bypass the above steps. Identifying potential problems in text
Here’s a small sample from a word list I generated in TextSTAT. As you can see, there are several possible problems:
(The colour coding is mine; I've provided it for clarity only. TextSTAT's word lists are in plain text.)
Upon checking the actual proofs, some of these issues turned out to be fine. For example:
Some issues had to be queried. For example:
Some issues needed further checking and amending. For example:
When proofreading hard-copy or PDF proofs, would I have spotted these problems with my eye alone? I'm not confident I'd have got everything, particularly the issues with the names of the less well-known cited authors. And if "beginings" had been in point-9 italic text, my eye might have passed over the missing letter. Where’s the context?
There is no context – that’s the point. When using TextSTAT as a word-list generation tool, we’re just looking at one word and how it compares with words above and below it in our list.
We’re not reading phrases; we’re not paying attention to grammar and syntax. It’s just a long list of words in alphabetical order. Later, we can focus on the words in context – TextSTAT’s word lists are just a tiny part of a process that help the proofreader or editor to provide his or her client with a polished piece of work. Fast, free and offline
TextSTAT isn’t the only word-list generation tool available for free. However, I love it because it can handle huge chunks of text without glitching – it will quickly generate word lists for books with hundreds of thousands of words (the sample I gave above was taken from a project of over 150,000 words, but I’ve used the program for larger projects). It’s never crashed on me.
You can download the software to your own computer, so there’s no issue regarding confidentiality. My clients don’t want me to upload their content to third-party browsers without their permission, so when I use a particular proofreading tool to augment my eye, that tool needs to be able to sit offline on my PC. Furthermore, it costs nothing. Say the creators: “TextSTAT is free software. It may be used free of charge and it may be freely distributed provided the copyright and the contents of all files, including TextSTAT.zip itself, are unmodified. Commercial distribution of the programme is only allowed with permission of the author. Use TextSTAT at your own risk; the author accepts no responsibility whatsoever. The sourcecode version comes with its own license." Is it worth the effort?
Some might think that an hour or so trawling through a simple word list, and cross-checking any potential problems against hard copy or PDF, is a lot of extra time to build into a proofreading project. I think that time improves the quality of my work and increases my productivity.
When I come to the actual reading-in-context stage, I'm confident that some really serious snags have already been attended to. That gives me peace of mind and enables me later to focus on other important issues like the page layout, the sense of the text, and more. I've found that using this method for dense academic projects has been particularly worthwhile. However, I'll not forget a recent fiction project (a "big name"-authored book that's in its nth edition and was first published over two decades ago) where the main protagonist's name was spelled incorrectly in two places: an easy thing to miss again and again over many years and many proofreads. I caught it – not because my eyes are better than those who came before me, or because I'm a better proofreader than those who came before me, but because I used a simple tool that allowed me to concentrate on just the words. Want to try TextSTAT?
If you want to give it a spin, it’s available from NEON - NEDERLANDS ONLINE.
The usual caveat applies: generating word lists as part of the proofreading and editing process isn't the one and only true way. TextSTAT is an example of one tool that I and some of my colleagues utilize to improve the quality of our work. You might utilize different tools and different methods to achieve the same ends. All of which is great! How to use TextStAT
These instructions are correct as of 24 June 2021.
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.
The rate for the job can often be a sticky subject for new and more experienced editorial professionals alike. Newbies sometimes wonder whether they should charge a lower fee precisely because they are new to the field of proofreading and editing.
Some experienced colleagues have argued that newbies aren’t worth the higher fee that an established editorial professional could justify, precisely because they don’t have experience. So should the newbie offer a lower rate simply by virtue of their newbieness? There are three important considerations to mention first:
1. Relating newness to ability It may be that because you are a new editorial business owner you've not yet acquired the skill to carry out a particular editorial function. Imagine that you're asked to quote for copy-editing a medical journal article written by a client whose third language is English. You assess the sample and realize that the article needs a deep edit, and a knowledge of a particular style guide that you're only vaguely familiar with. Overall the requirements are complex. The question is not: "Should I charge a lower rate because I'm new?" This question is: "Do I have the skill to do the work?" On the other hand, it may be that you're experienced in some areas or editorial freelancing but still don't have the skill to carry out a particular job. If I were approached to work on the above-mentioned project, I'd decline. The fact that I'm an experienced editorial business owner is neither here nor there. The fact that I'm a specialist fiction proofreader and copy-editor is the key issue. I don't have the skills to do this medical copy-editing job.
2. Lower than what? There is no one fixed rate The terms "lower" and "higher" are problematic. There’s no one set rate here in the UK or anywhere else in the world for any editorial service. Different proofreaders and editors charge (and are offered) different rates of pay depending on whom they're working for and what service they're providing. It’s the same with other professions – e.g. plumbers, dentists, graphic designers and hairdressers. There are some suggested minimum rates available from national editorial societies, but these aren’t the law – they’re guidelines, and they pay no heed to your individual circumstances. So when you hear editorial colleagues talking about “low” or “lower” fees and “high” or “higher” fees, be cautious – what one person considers high may be considered low or medium to another. If you’re thinking about charging a “lower” fee because you’re a newbie, ask yourself the following: Lower than what?
Those are all quite different things! 3. We don’t always hold the balance of power When an independent author or business contacts me (say, via my website or one of the directories in which I advertise) with a request to quote, I can control the price. I hold the balance of power. The client may not like my proposed price and choose to go elsewhere, but I decide how I'll price a job. On the flip side, when I work for publishers, for example, the balance of power can shift in their favour. Negotiation is possible, but not always. Some publishers offer fixed fees for a whole job; others offer a fixed rate per hour and ask for work to be completed within a maximum budgeted number of hours. If I don’t like the hourly rate, the fixed rate, or the time frame, I'm free to decline the job, but the publisher might attempt to find someone else who’ll do the job within their preferred budget. Some agencies and businesses will expect to be charged a day rate, regardless of how long the work takes. Some clients will pay a premium for work carried out in unsociable hours. The upshot of this is a follows: the amount of money a proofreader/editor can earn is not fixed. I’m happy to throw some numbers at you based on my own experience, but don’t take these as The One and Only Way Things Are. They’re merely examples – other editors will have earned more and less, depending on job, client, complexity, etc. I’ve simply picked a few cases from my current and past years' annual schedules to show the variance. Some examples of my (extrapolated) proofreading/copy-editing rates per hour:
As I say, these are just examples. There's a mix of control here: in some cases I set the price; in others the client offered a price and I accepted. There's a mix of hourly rates, too, but I know that "high" or "low" are relative terms. In a nutshell, these numbers are not what you should be earning per hour; they are simply examples of what I have earned per hour. Some editorial folk don't even like to value their services by the hour; I chose to do so here because I wanted a straightforward way to present the information. USPs – then and now When we do hold the balance of power, and we're quoting for jobs, it’s useful to frame our quotations around the value we bring to the table. This is about how we advertise ourselves. Here’s a comparison of the USPs (unique selling points) I used at the beginning and middle of my editorial career and the ones I use currently. These are broadly the kinds of things that I use to talk to my clients in a value-on way – they tell the client why they should hire me. 2006
2014
2017
Let’s imagine for simplicity that I currently charge an hourly fee of £30 for working for independent authors, based on my 2017 USPs. But what if a new entrant to the field looks at the information about me in 2017? Should that person deliberately decide to charge only £15 per hour, even though they'd prefer to charge £30? To justify this to themselves they'd need to be able to persuade themselves and their potential client that they're not worth more. Why? Because, in this scenario, they'd have to believe that their newbieness means:
Is the above true?
Even if the newbie does believe that their miss rate will be higher, and that their less extensive time in the job and their smaller portfolio of work mean that they're not such a good bet for the client, how will the newbie frame this information? Value-off pricing – not a professional message When we quote for clients, whether we are new entrants or old hands, we're telling that person what we CAN do for them, not what we can’t. Ask yourself whether, as a newbie, you’d seriously consider supplementing your list of USPs with any of the following statements:
If you were a client and you received a quotation framed around all of the above, would you hire the editor? Your potential client doesn’t need to hear what you haven’t done or can’t do, and therefore why you think you're worth less than your colleagues. Rather, your client will appreciate the following:
In a nutshell, if it doesn’t sell you in a good light, don’t mention it. And if you’re not mentioning it to your client, why would you use it to justify a fee structure that is deliberately lower than the one you want/need to charge? What’s your message? Newbie or editorial professional? You may think of yourself as a newbie, and your colleagues may know that you’re a newbie, but your client does NOT need to know this. Your client needs to know that you are capable of solving their problems. On the inside you are a newbie, but as far as the world of potential clients is concerned you are an editorial business professional offering a specific editorial service based around a defined set of USPs. This is a value-on way of thinking, not value-off. Given that you are an editorial business professional, you're entitled to build a fee structure that reflects this. Offering yourself on the cheap because you ain’t all that is not an option. It isn’t how business professionals in any field market themselves. As my colleague Kate Haigh (personal correspondence) has reminded me more times than I care to mention: If you price yourself cheap because you think you’re worth nothing more, and you tell your client this, then you are indeed worth nothing more. Who wants to hire someone like that? Who feels confident about hiring someone like that? (See also Kate's excellent Because you're worth it! Charging what you're worth.) Recall the balance of power section above – you may still decide to work for clients who hold the balance of power and pay less than the fee structure you've defined for yourself when you're in control. But that’s not about being a new entrant to the field. That’s about making decisions about who you want to work for and what you will accept. Even established editorial folk make those decisions. I've worked for some publisher clients who offer an hourly rate way lower than the one I charge when I’m setting the price. Why? Because I wanted to and it was my choice. I liked their books. I enjoyed the work. I got tons of satisfaction from the jobs. I liked the regularity of the work on offer. And because it gave me some smashing thumbnail piccies on my site of well-known books by big-name authors. Pricing is part of the marketing mix … Pricing is part of marketing. When you set a price you're telling the market what you think your services are worth. If you can do the job, then you should do the job, and tell your clients you can do the job. If you want to reduce your fee to an amount below that which you think your services are worth, I’d recommend coming up with a better reason to do so than your newness. Charge what you want to charge, but make your decisions based on the worth you bring to the table and your ability to do the job, not the empty space you’ve yet to fill, or the youth of your business compared with some of your colleagues'. If you don't think you have the skill to do a job, don't charge less. Instead, refer the client to someone who has the skills. Furthermore, put yourself in your customer’s shoes – the client to whom you’re pitching wants to know what you can do, not what you can’t. Your pricing needs to reflect this. The minute you start knocking down your price through lack of confidence is the minute you shift the balance of power to your client – you’ve focused their attention on the money they’re forking out rather than the service you provide. It becomes all about how little they can spend rather than what they can gain from your capability. You encourage your client to become what Rich Adin calls a "shopper", "where the single dominant expectation is that price is the determining decision factor" (How Much Is That Editor in the Window?). So what should you charge? There’s no ready answer to this because it depends on so many factors. However, guidance can be found by returning to the “lower than what?” issue mentioned above:
You might also like to take a look at these articles that I published on The Proofreader's Parlour: “I want to be an editor – when will I start earning $?” and other unanswerable questions and Value-on or money-off? Putting a price on your editorial services. Don't forget that no pricing structure or quotation framework is set in stone – testing provides you with your very own market research. Even negative results are learning opportunities that you can use to tweak your pricing models and help you to identify which frameworks work best for you in particular situations. If, after visiting the resources above, you still feel yourself bending towards lowering your prices either because of a lack of confidence and/or because your business is young, take a step back and make sure you have your business hat planted firmly on your head. More resources
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.
There's no consensus about the best order in which to complete a proofreading project, but I thought I’d share some tips about how I choose to structure the process.
My structure is based on my work with page proofs supplied by project management agencies and publishers. If you don’t know what page proofs are, take a look at Not all proofreading is the same: Part I – Working with page proofs. As I state in this article:
The above are examples of just some of the issues I look out for – in no way do they represent a comprehensive checklist.
Riveting vs routine I tend think of the tasks involved in proofreading as falling roughly into two categories – riveting and routine. The riveting element is the reading bit – I get paid to read the text word by word, line by line, page by page. I’m engaged with the text and that’s the exciting part of my job. Whether I’m proofreading a short science-fiction novel, a gritty non-fiction piece about martial arts, or a dense tome about pharmaceutical patent law, there’s always something new to learn. For me, this is the best part of the job. The routine element comprises the kind of checks listed above – the word breaks, the running heads, chapter and part title consistency, positioning of page numbers and chapter drops, and so on. For me, this is the dullest part of the job. Hardest vs easiest The riveting element is the hardest part of the job for me – that’s because context is king and because every change I make in the main body of the text could have knock-on effects elsewhere. Furthermore, I need to take a different kind of care not to proofread too fast when I’m working on fiction. I’ve been lucky enough to proofread some absolute corkers – Jonathan Pinnock’s Dot Dash, James Herbert’s The Rats, Jennifer Egan’s A Visit from the Goon Squad, and Donn Pearce’s Cool Hand Luke, to name but a few – and it requires discipline not to get so engrossed in the story that one becomes a reader rather than a proofreader. The routine element is the easiest part of the job for me – that’s because the problems are usually obvious and easy to make decisions about. I might headscratch over whether to leave well enough alone, query, or mark up in the main body of the text, but if a page number is wrong in the contents list, it’s a no-brainer. A mislabelled table needs attending to. Same thing with inconsistent half titles and book titles, missing tables, incorrect running heads, and odd page numbers placed on versos (left-hand pages). Tricky first, easy last? I’m not sure why but when I began my proofreading career I’d carry out many of the routine elements of the project at the end. I imagine that my thinking was something on the lines of “I’ll get the tricky bit out of the way first – then I’ll do the routine stuff and close the project”. That worked just fine for a while and I carried on that way until one of my PMs contacted me with some feedback that said I’d done a great job with the main text but could I take care in future to double check that the book title and half title matched? I’d missed something so ridiculously obvious – something that stuck out like a sore thumb. How could that have happened? It's on my checklist. I was sure I'd done it; I'd just not seen the error. I apologized profusely (she forgave me!). Then I grabbed a coffee, sat back, and considered my method. The routine bit is supposed to be the easiest bit – it’s supposed to be the bit I can’t get wrong, but it’s also the dullest. Was that the problem? The mindset of project closure … I came to the conclusion that when I’ve finished the riveting part of my job, my brain goes into project-closure mode. The problem is that the routine element can take me an hour, even several hours if the project is large. So if I’ve finished reading the text, my brain’s saying, “You’re nearly done”, when in fact that’s far from the truth – there’s still some really important and routine tasks to complete that my publishers expect as standard. I was doing what for me was the dullest and easiest bit of the job when my brain was at its least attentive. The risk of a miss was higher given this mindset. I therefore decided to revise my method – I’d do the bulk of the routine work at the beginning of the project and commence the fun bit afterwards. The decision reminded me of when I was a kid and my mum would tell me that I needed to eat my green veggies before I stuffed my face with a third helping of her rather excellent roast potatoes! Scouting out the lie of the land … My decision had some unforeseen benefits. Few of my clients pay me for more than one pass. And yet by doing the routine work first I give myself the opportunity to get an overall of sense of the book – its layout, its various different elements, its themes, its overall structure – by working through my checklist one step at a time before I start the actual read itself. As I first check every single page number I’m moving through the book, one page at a time. Then I go back to the beginning and do the same with my running heads. Then back to the beginning again to check my lists of tables, figures and contents. Then back again to check the chapter drops … and so on and so forth, all the time building up a picture of how the book works. And each time I go to the beginning and start a new check I'm doing a tiny pass, over and over again. I like this method because it allows me to scout out the lie of the land. It often means I pick up on little oddities that I can make a note of to watch out for once the actual reading process begins. But, more importantly, my mindset is in start-up mode and that’s exactly where I want it to be when I'm attending to the more mundane aspects of the project. I don’t have to worry that my miss rate will be higher by the end of the riveting bit as a result of boredom, precisely because it’s the riveting bit, not the boring bit. Something to test? I still go back and do some double checks when I've finished the riveting stage. And I like to take a look at each page one final time and review any notes that I was given by the copy-editor or PM – just to reassure myself that I've done what I was asked to do. But, broadly speaking, I've reversed my method. My method may not be your method because you may be wired differently to me. But if you are the sort of person who does most of your routine tasks at the end, and you find yourself in project-closure mode a few hours ahead of schedule, don't be afraid to consider testing a revision of the order in which you do things. You might just find your new process works better for you.
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.
If you're tasked with proofreading designed page proofs, annotating for change is not always the best course of action. We're into the realm of when to mark up, when to query and when to leave things be.
A Facebook discussion about the role of the proofreader working on copy-edited proofs got me thinking about the issue of leaving well enough alone.
This was something that was addressed by my proofreading training course (via The Publishing Training Centre), and it’s a tricky nut to crack, one that on occasion still stumps me, even though I have years of practice under my belt. To clarify, this article is framed within the context of the proofreader who is working with page proofs, because this is the case where the artistry of sensitive and sensible proofreading practice really comes into play. What are page proofs? The mainstream publisher will usually require the proofreader to work on page proofs: “Page proofs are so called because they are laid out as exactly as they will appear in the final printed book. If all has gone well, what the proofreader is looking at will be almost what the reader sees if they were to walk into a bookshop, pull this title off the shelf and browse through the pages. The layout process has been taken care of by a professional typesetter who designs the text in a way that is pleasing to the eye and in accordance with a publisher’s brief” (Not all proofreading is the same: Part I – Working with page proofs). In this case, the proofreader does not amend the text directly. She annotates the page proofs. Why is proofreading an art? Proofreading entails finding solutions to any final problems that have escaped the author’s, copy-editor’s, and typesetter’s attention. These professionals are only human, and it’s unusual not to find at least a few problems in a set of page proofs, despite the fact that the manuscript has been reviewed multiple times. In fact, precisely because there are so many rounds of review, the opportunity for errors to be introduced is higher. The artistry comes in because it’s not enough to be able to spot those final pesky typos, misplaced apostrophes, incorrect running heads, missing captions, poorly aligned table figures, and so on. The good proofreader needs to know when to leave well enough alone. The Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP) says: “… Part of the job is light editing within tight limits, but professional proofreaders do not re-edit the material. They intervene only with good reason [my emphasis]” (CIEP, n.d. FAQs: Proofreading). Here’s a brief summary of why proofreaders need to take care with the extent of their mark-up:
A cautionary tale and a lesson learned Have I ever over-marked? Have I intervened when I should have left well enough alone? Alas, yes. And I wasn't an inexperienced proofreader when it happened. I’ve elected to share my tale of shame in the hope that any over-enthusiastic proofreaders reading this will be able to learn from the mistake I made! A few years ago I proofread an academic book for a regular publisher client. The book was copy-edited by an editor with whom I’d worked on several occasions. She always does a super job. And, really, that should have been the only alarm bell I needed. The page proofs arrived and I noticed that the book was littered with whiches – rather than thats – being used for restrictive relative clauses. I changed them all. In pen. After all, I reasoned, even though in British English this usage is acceptable (though not always preferred), my publisher client is a stickler and the book’s market is international. Satisfied that I’d done a very fine job indeed I posted back the proofs to the copy-editor, who went on to collate my changes with the author’s. A week later I received a very polite email from a frustrated copy-editor. She informed me that though she, too, would have preferred to change every appropriate “which” to “that,” the author was particularly sensitive to having his copy amended and she’d had to settle for a lighter edit. She’d notified the in-house project manager and the decision had been agreed. “In future, if any extensive changes need to be made, would you be kind enough to check first? I'm going to have to stet a lot of your mark-up.” On an embarrassment scale of one to ten, I rated at least fifteen. My face was redder than my proofreading pen. I’d wasted my time and I’d wasted hers. And if I’d simply checked with her (or the in-house project manager) before I’d let my pen run wild, the problem could have been avoided. I still work for that publisher and I still proofread books for that copy-editor. But I learned my lesson. A note: A colleague who reviewed this article argued persuasively that the embarrassment shouldn't have been mine alone – in this situation I wasn't given a comprehensive style sheet detailing the decisions made. Either the copy-editor or the publisher could have supplied one – certainly many professional editors consider this to be not only good business practice but proper business practice. At the very least, someone could have emailed me with a brief heads-up. Nevertheless, since the proofreader cannot guarantee that they’ll receive such a style sheet, and busy editors and publishers are only human and sometimes forget things, my point about querying stands. It’s always, always better to clarify than to assume. Amend, query or move on? Editing is an art. But proofreading is, too. Sometimes we need to stop and think before we amend; sometimes we need to put down the pen and either query or move on. Knowing when to leave well enough alone can be a tricky call to make. We’re not here to re-edit. What we do sits in the context of a chain of decisions that have already been made by other professionals – decisions about budget, schedule, style, brief and design. Failing to acknowledge this fact can lead to time wastage at best, and harm at worst.
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.
When will I start earning a decent income from editing? That's a question many new editors and proofreaders want to know the answer to. The fact is this: it depends on many factors.
Difficult questions
It’s not uncommon for established editorial business-owning folk to be asked the above questions (or variations of them). It’s natural that any potential new entrant to the field wants reassurance with regard to the possibilities for “success”. Unless we own a business that provides editorial services for free, has no operating costs, and is owned by someone (us) who has an independent income that pays all our bills, we all need to earn money. However, there’s a problem – all these questions are impossible to answer by anyone other than the person asking the question. I would love to be able to give definitive answers:
But to respond as such would be misleading. However long we’ve been in business, however “successful” our businesses, we can’t know how a new colleague will fare. This is because the following are specific to each and every one of us: A How much we need to earn per month to meet our expenses B How many billable hours a month we have available for work C The customer groups with whom we are best matched D How much our target customers will pay E How much work per month (hours) they will supply us with Ultimately, we all hope to be in a position where D x E is greater than A (though we are limited by B). Getting to this point takes time and effort, so transitioning carefully with realistic expectations, thorough research, sensible planning and an awareness of what needs to be done to run a business will form the backbone of any advice an editorial pro can provide. A: How much money do you need to earn?
Financial viability is less about what you earn than what you need to earn. If Ms Editor earns ten grand a month from her editorial business but her mortgage is triple that, she’s in trouble.
If Mr Proofer earns ten grand a year from his editorial business but he has a large trust fund and a mortgage-free home, courtesy of a wealthy and generous relative, he’s laughing. These are extremes, I know, but the point is that each person’s requirements are unique to their situation.
All these issues and more will affect what you need to earn and therefore what financial figure will mean "success", "sustainability" and "viability" for you. B: How many billable hours a month do you have available?
Returning to the basic equation above, if D (what our customers will pay) multiplied by E (how many hours of work we can secure) only equals A (what we need to earn) when we bill for 40 hours a week, but we only have 20 billable hours a week available, we have a problem.
For example, in my household there is a young child who needs attending to, meaning I have 30 billable hours available. I have to factor that into my planning. Even if you have 50 billable hours available, are you sure you can work those hours? Proofreading and editing require a lot of concentration. There’s a lot of strain on the brain and the eyes. Some people can sustain this level of attention; others struggle. It’s therefore important to be realistic about whether it’s physically feasible to work the hours available. Heed Rich Adin's wise advice:
The usual scenario is that an editor ends the year having worked fewer than an average of 40 hours per week and fewer than 52 weeks during the year.
(The Business of Editing: Why $10 Can’t Make It, An American Editor, 2014) That's worth bearing in mind when doing the arithmetic. Furthermore, running one’s own business means that time has to be made for housekeeping issues that aren't billable – marketing, invoicing, equipment maintenance, troubleshooting, accounting, training, etc. If you have 40 hours you may well need to set aside 5 for your other business-essential tasks, leaving you with only 35 billable hours. Be sure to factor those in to your planning. Rich Adin offers some detailed advice about this on his An American Editor blog: see his posts tagged "effective hourly rate" or "EHR". C: With which customer groups are you best matched?
What services you are offering and to whom? Different client types have different expectations – of what editorial services cost and what they comprise.
An independent author might ask for a proofreader but expect the level of intervention that a copy-editor would provide; they might even need a structural editor (for a summary of these different levels of intervention, download the booklet Which Level of Editing Do You Need? Also worth noting is that a publisher with a set of typeset page proofs will almost certainly define “proofreading” differently from a business client with a Word file. And a biologist looking for an editor to check her journal article prior to submission might require that editor to have a life-sciences knowledge base that the fantasy fiction author certainly won’t. Knowing your customer and how their needs match your skills is important if you are to target effectively. Getting to those customers is key – earning money means finding clients; and finding clients means promoting your business. If you have 35 billable hours available but no clients, you're effectively unemployed. Assuming you are trained and work-ready, you need to be proactive with regard to those promotional activities that are most likely to bring you into contact with your customer. Effective marketing is not only about delivering the message via an appropriate channel, but also about ensuring that the message is on point. This can take a lot of tweaking – making sure that CVs, portfolios, website copy, letters/emails, directory listings, etc. communicate the right message to a particular customer. D and E: How much will your target customers pay and how much work will they will supply?
Even if you've identified appropriate customer groups and worked out how to get their attention, will they pay you what you need to earn? “Editing” is an umbrella term that incorporates a range of functions and a corresponding range of fees
See, for example:
Asking how one goes about getting into “editing”, how much it will pay and how long it will take to earn that money is a little like asking the same questions with regard to hospital work – it depends on whether you want to be an auxiliary nurse, a radiologist, a heart surgeon, an administrator or a cleaner. There are lots of different jobs that pay different rates. Opportunities for one role may come up less often than opportunities for others, and the skills/training required to be work-ready for those roles are different, too. (For guidance about suggested fees, check your national editorial society's guidelines.) You may find that, in the start-up phase of your editorial-business ownership, the clients who are offering you work don’t have enough of it to meet all of your financial requirements, or they have enough work but the rates they are prepared to pay mean that your total monthly earnings don’t match your outgoings. Furthermore, the editorial freelancing market is competitive. Some of your core potential clients may already have the suppliers they need, so even though you have the skills the customer wants, they don't yet have space to take you on. All of these factors mean that building an economically sustainable client base will take time, though exactly how much time will vary depending on whom you speak to. What to do ... asking answerable questions
Here's what to do:
Once you know what you’re spending you know what you need to earn. Now you’re in a position to start thinking about the types of people who will hire your services and how you will get to them.
Join editorial freelancing networks and use these to talk to your colleagues-to-be. In addition to the social media options, most national editorial societies offer opportunities for members to engage with each other. Using these networks, you can explore the following: None of the above will tell you whether their experiences will be the same as yours because you’re starting out now, whereas they were starting out then. Furthermore, your voice is different to their voice, so the way you present yourself will be unique. Still further, not all the online voices will be targeting the same customers as you or even live in the same part of the world as you; advice may be country- or region-specific and therefore not necessarily appropriate to you (though many core business issues are universal). What these discussions will do is guide you towards ideas and activities that can be tested. As Kate Haigh reminds us, when it comes to networking:
The support that we all offer each other is invaluable, not only with work-specific queries but also with ideas for training, ways of dealing with the peaks and troughs of work and, perhaps more importantly, just being there with an understanding ear.
(Best of enemies – the joys of seeing other freelancers as colleagues and not enemies. Find a Proofreader) No established editorial business owner will be able to hand over a ready-made plan that will guarantee a certain level of income in a certain time frame by carrying out a definitive list of activities. However, by doing the in-depth research and planning, you can still make sensible decisions about whether to jack in your full-time job and go freelance straight away, or whether to hold off and transition more gently as you hone your skills, explore your potential customers’ requirements, and build a sense of what work is available and how much income it generates. And don't forget that terms such as “success”, “viability” and “sustainability” mean nothing unless they are framed within the broader and unique context of what each of us requires to thrive. More resources
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.
If you’re thinking about becoming a proofreader, it’s important to understand that this term can mean different things in different contexts and with different client groups. This article focuses on working with raw text.
What type of proofreading you want to do and which group of clients you want to be work-ready for will determine the choices you make with regard to training.
Some proofreaders work directly with the creators of the written materials – independent authors, students and business professionals, for example.
These clients send Word files and the proofreader amends the files directly (often with Track Changes switched on so that the client can see what’s been changed). Others work for intermediaries such as publishers and project-management agencies. Here the author supplies the text files; then the in-house project manager (PM) organizes the various elements of the production process – including copyediting, proofreading, typesetting and printing. After copyediting and typesetting, the PM supplies page proofs to the proofreader, who makes annotations that identify where there are problems to be attended to. The proofreader does not amend the text directly. In Part I, I gave the new entrant to the field an overview of what it’s like to be a proofreader working with page proofs. Here in Part II, I consider proofreading that involves working directly with the raw-text Word files.
Which types of client want to work in Word?
Most of the proofreading done in Word stems from having been commissioned directly by the content creator – a business executive, a self-publishing author or a student. Academic writers, particularly those submitting articles to journals and for whom your first language is their second, are also likely to send Word files. Only one of my publisher clients asks me to proofread in Word. What is the proofreader looking for? It depends on the client's expectations (see below: Disadvantages) and your terms and conditions. Certainly, when it comes to proofreading for non-publisher clients, the definition of proofreading starts to look unclear and the boundaries between this and copyediting become blurred. Unlike with page proofs, we can't check the final designed layout of the file but we still need to read every word. Some of the issues dealt with in the list below would be acceptable to the proofreader working for an academic author but not when working with a Master's student. (Some clients might even want/expect a level of restructuring, rewriting and checking that a proofreader wouldn't consider to be within their remit.)
What are the advantages?
What are the disadvantages?
There are still legal issues to consider … Even if you are working directly with the primary authors of the content, you still need to get their permission to upload their text to third-party sites if you want to utilize software that's not on your computer. The files you've been sent from Indie authors, students and businesses are their property and they send them to you in good faith, so you must get permission for their content to leave your computer.
What does this mean for training?
Knowing the software ... If you want to proofread in Word, you'll need to be proficient in using it. Word is one of the most powerful pieces of word-processing software available, and there's a huge amount you can do with it if you want to proofread (or edit) efficiently. You might therefore need to supplement your proofreading training with learning that focuses on using macros, making the best of Find/Replace and wildcards, using Track Changes, and Microsoft Word usage in general. There's still the issue of how much to interfere ... If you do end up proofreading for a publisher client who wants you to work in Word, it will be necessary to consider the issue of when to leave well enough alone, as discussed in Part I. However, independent authors looking for a proofreader may actually be expecting a deeper edit and will be disappointed if you're not prepared to rewrite sentences for them. If you've not had experience of, or training in, editing, you may find that a 'proofreading' project ends up being a bigger bite than you can chew. One of my colleagues feels that specific training in editing isn't always critical when working with business clients, whereas for self-publishing novelists it would be very important. I'm inclined to agree. One person might be relatively comfortable suggesting improved sentence construction to a business client but very wary of doing so with an author of fiction. What this shows is how blurry the edges can become and how important it is to have a detailed conversation before you begin a project. I often encourage independent fiction authors looking for a proofreader to consider commissioning editing first. Editors with both editing and proofreading skills are better placed to take on jobs for non-publisher clients that fall in the editing camp, or somewhere between editing and proofing (proofediting). If you think you'll end up straying beyond the realm of proofreading, you might consider adding copyediting courses into your training mix. Think about what type of client you're going to be working for to help you decide what's appropriate. Summing up … Proofreading isn't some catch-all phrase that means the same thing to every client group. What you actually do, on which medium, how much you interfere, the extent to which you can use complementary tools, and the expectations of the client will differ greatly. This means a range of competencies will need to be acquired depending on whom you’re working for. Your training will need to match the requirements of various client groups – a publisher’s expectations in terms of industry-recognized standards will be different from a business executive’s or student’s, so take care to research any proofreading training syllabus carefully to make sure it’s providing you with the skill set relevant to your target client group. Your training should suit your needs, your business plan, your objectives – and what will be right for one person may not be right for another. Read this article's sister post: Not all proofreading is the same: Part I – Working with page proofs.
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.
Professional proofreading training provides you with more than just technical knowledge and skills. It also gets you into the mindset of good business practice: pacing, taking stock, and focusing on the detail.
I've been delighted to read how, at the time of writing, a number of UK-based proofreaders-in-training have successfully completed the Publishing Training Centre’s distance-learning proofreading course, a comprehensive offering that, along with the CIEP training suite, is well respected within the UK publishing industry.
I took this course in 2005 and I believe it provided me with a foundation that made me ready for the practical side of actually doing the job. Consequently I have no problem recommending it to those who ask my opinion on the matter. I learned a huge amount from this course (which I took seven months to complete) and also from colleagues in my prior workplace. Perhaps one of the most important pieces of knowledge I acquired, and that I needed in order to make a proofreading career viable from a practical point of view, was the necessary mindset. Old working practices I come from a publishing background. My first job was in the European marketing, sales and distribution office of Williams & Wilkins, the Baltimore-based STM publisher. I was a sales promotion manager. From there I moved to SAGE publications, a well-known independent social sciences and educational publisher (though their publishing programme has expanded somewhat since my day). I was employed as a senior journals marketing manager and remained so for the rest of my office-bound career. The colleagues with whom I worked most closely were commissioning editors, fellow marketing execs, and editorial production managers.
Learning from editorial production … I finally left SAGE to dedicate a couple of years to child-rearing. My little family moved to the Norfolk countryside and we revelled in the stunning rural views from the windows of our home and enjoyed the space, the grass, the deer, and the short drive to the beach. And then I got itchy feet. I wanted back into publishing but I wanted it on my own terms – freelance proofreading seemed like the solution. But my editorial production colleagues had already taught me to ask an important question: Do I have the right mindset for the actual practice of proofreading? As I've said, my background was in marketing. I was used to being in a work environment that was about ideas and experimentation. I'm not saying that there were no processes to attend to or that I didn't have certain business parameters to work within. I did, of course. But following a brief, pedantic punctuating and a careful, methodical, almost plodding attention to detail weren't the criteria at the top of my job description. If I was going to transition to a proofreading career, I would need to ensure that the appropriate mindset was embedded in the way I approached my work. I knew I had a tendency to get a bee in my bonnet and jump in without looking where I was going. It’s in my nature! To be a proofreader I needed to slow down. I needed to be a detail person. Left field needed to be left behind! Learning from professional trainers … That’s why I chose the Basic Proofreading by Distance Learning course. I wanted a comprehensive training tool that would make me practice-ready, but I wanted to be assessed, too. I needed to be able to see where my weaknesses were, as well as my strengths. And I needed to practise being a detail person – to embed that mindset of attending to the method, the process, the instructions, so that I could do what the client wanted. A target market for me was always going to be social science publishers – I've a politics degree and in-house experience, so it made sense right from the start. I knew these publishers would have demanding expectations of their proofreaders and I wanted to be ready. Ready for the house brief, ready for the method, ready for the deadlines. Practising the mindset … How did I prepare? I read each chapter’s theory several times. I photocopied the exercises several times. I’d do them, trying my best to mark up in the way the chapter had advised. I’d mark my own efforts, make notes about my weaknesses, re-read the appropriate course material, and then put the exercise away for a few days. Then I’d do it all over again – this helped me see if I’d learned from my previous mistakes or whether the information had gone in one ear and out of the other. Then I’d do it a third time – leave alone for a few days and then repeat the exercise. When I was confident I’d nailed it, I’d photocopy the assessed test so that I had three copies. Then I’d do the test, put it away, re-do the test, compare, see if I was consistent, put it away, go through it one last time, attend to anything I’d missed, and then submit. It was laborious. But I learned to slow down; I learned what my weak points were; I learned a systematic method of working practice that focused on my client's instructions and objectives. I became so used to working like this that it embedded this careful attention to detail in my mind – something that I rely on every time I'm commissioned to work on a project. Of course my publishers don’t budget for me to do multiple passes on a piece of work, with several days of quiet reflection in between! Now that would be a luxury! But I'm glad I had the space to do this, to learn that mindset, to get used to being a detail person. So, if you fancy proofreading as a career, ask yourself the same question: Do I have the right mindset for the actual practice of proofreading? If you’re not sure, use your training* space to practise the careful, methodical process of attending to detail, according to the instructor’s brief. You won’t regret it and the time taken will be an investment that you can carry with you throughout your future career. * If you're still deciding which course to take, your national editorial society will be able to offer advice about the training options available in your region.
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.
If you’re thinking about becoming a professional proofreader, it’s important to understand that the term 'proofreading' can mean different things in different contexts and with different client groups. This article focuses on working with designed page proofs,
What type of proofreading you want to do and which groups of clients you want to be work-ready for will determine the choices you make with regard to training.
Some proofreaders work directly with the creators of the written materials being proofread – independent authors, students and business professionals, for example. These clients send Word files and the proofreader amends the files directly (often with Track Changes switched on so that the client can see what’s been changed).
Others work for intermediaries such as publishers and project management agencies. Here the author supplies the text files; then the in-house project manager (PM) organizes the various elements of the production process – including copy-editing, proofreading, typesetting and printing. After copy-editing and typesetting, the PM supplies page proofs to the proofreader, who makes annotations that identify where there are problems to be attended to. The proofreader does not amend the text directly. Here in Part I, I give the new entrant to the field an overview of what it’s like to be a proofreader working with page proofs. In Part II, I’ll consider proofreading work that involves working directly with the raw Word files.
What are page proofs?
Page proofs, traditionally defined, are so called because they are laid out exactly as they will appear in the final printed book. If all has gone well, what the proofreader is looking at will be almost what the reader sees if they were to walk into a bookshop, pull this title off the shelf and browse through the pages. The layout process has been taken care of by a professional typesetter or interior formatter who designs the text in a way that is pleasing to the eye and in accordance with a publisher’s brief. Page proofs from publishers and project management agencies are usually either in paper or PDF format. When working on paper, you'll likely still be supplied with a PDF (which comes in useful when using digital tools). In addition to the bulk of the typeset text, page proofs include the following elements: page numbers; running heads; a contents list; copyright information; cataloguing data; figures, tables and any other finished artwork; bibliography; and perhaps an index. The jacket may or may not be included, but there’ll usually be a title page and a half-title page. To reiterate, the pages have been professionally designed, so your job is not only to check for any final grammar, spelling or punctuation errors that have slipped in during the production chain; you're also tasked with ensuring that the appearance of the book is consistent and correct according to the instructions given to the typesetter by the client. Thus, you'll need to carry out a range of checks to ensure the following:
This isn't a comprehensive list but it gives you an idea of how this type of proofreading goes beyond just checking the text for typos. Download this free proofreading checklist if your client doesn't supply you with one.
Where are you in the chain?
The proofreader is one person in a fairly lengthy chain. Different clients work in different ways but the following is not uncommon:
The process is often further complicated by the ebook creation process. Text might be digitized at different stages of the process.
What does this mean for your working methods?
You're not actually changing anything … You can use digital tools to complement your eye – various scripted macros, consistency checkers like PerfectIt, and reference-checking software like ReferenceChecker. To use these tools you need to strip text from a PDF of the page proofs, place it in a Word document, and then run your digital tools. Any mistakes flagged up, however, need to be marked up on the page proofs – that is, on paper or PDF (as agreed with the PM). You don’t get to change the actual text – you only get to make marks on it (usually those little hieroglyphics that constitute, in the UK, the BS 5261C:2005 proof-correction symbols). But you're checking everything … Recall, too, that you're paid to check every word and every page. Relevant software is a brilliant addition to any proofreader’s tool kit, but it will only go so far because the proofreader’s job goes beyond error-checking. We’re looking for layout problems, too, because we’re working on designed text – the first draft of the final page proofs. There are legal issues … you can only use software tools that are already sitting on your PC. This is because of confidentiality issues. All of my PMs consider it unacceptable business practice for me to send the page proofs (or the text stripped from them) to a third party, as the following direct quotes demonstrate: Confidentiality is absolutely core … We send PDFs to proofreaders in good faith. The files must not be uploaded to external websites or distributed to third parties. We ask that anyone who receives a file from us in the course of their freelance work [...] does not share that file with anyone, does not post it to any remote server or LAN, makes no copies of it and deletes it after use. We send files to you on the strict understanding that they are for you to use only in completing the assignment we've placed with you.
What does this mean for training?
If you want to proofread for publishers, it’s likely that you’ll be working on page proofs. This means you’ll need to learn to use the industry-recognized mark-up language effectively and efficiently, and you’ll need to be able to carry out the necessary design and layout checks. If your training course doesn't teach you how to mark up using the relevant symbols or what to look out for in terms of layout problems, it’s probably not the right course to make you fit for publisher work. Furthermore, you’ll have to learn not to interfere beyond your brief. Not all publishers want every single inconsistency attended to. Amendments made at page-proof stage are expensive to implement so many publishers ask for 'minimal' correction. How they define 'minimal' will vary so you’ll need to work according to a clear brief. And if you’re not given a clear brief, you’ll need to ask for one. Assumptions about your remit are to be avoided – what one PM considers unworthy of change will be considered an essential error by another! The business of knowing when to leave well enough alone and when to interfere is one of the trickiest issues to deal with, so doing a course that has an assessment element is a good idea if you are working with page proofs and publisher clients. Summing up … Proofreading isn't some catch-all phrase that means the same thing to every client group. What you actually do, on which medium, how much you interfere, the extent to which you can use complementary tools, and the expectations of the client will differ greatly. This means a range of competencies will need to be acquired depending on whom you’re working for. Your training will need to match the requirements of various client groups – a publisher’s expectations in terms of industry-recognized standards will be different from a business executive’s or student’s, so take care to research any proofreading training syllabus carefully to make sure it’s providing you with the skill set relevant to your target client group. Your training should suit your needs, your business plan, your objectives; and what will be right for one person may not be right for another.
In Part II, I look at proofreading for clients who want you to work directly on the text in Word; how the line between editing and proofreading can become blurred; and how this might influence the type of training you do or the work you choose to take on.
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.
If your client wants sensitive end-of-line word-breaks in their text, and they will if they're asking you to proofread for print, this online tool will help you decide where to break the word and insert the hyphen.
For example, Oxford Dictionaries recommends the following:
There's always the trusty New Oxford Spelling Dictionary, an authority on spelling and word division. However, if you have clients that want every end-of-line hyphen checked, you'll need something more efficient than a book.
Perhaps you work on magazine articles, three columns to a page. Word breaks abound. And since the client pays on a flat-fee basis for each job, looking up these darn things impacts on your hourly rate in no small way. Oxford Dictionaries includes online access to its dictionaries and thesauri, New Hart's Rules and Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage. It also includes a function for checking word-breaks. I'm not chucking away my print book quite yet. There are limitations to the online version. For example, 'wingless' doesn't have its own entry, but is part of the definition of 'wing', so the preferred break (wing | less) isn't offered. Still, productivity increases are only a click away if you have to check end-of-line word-breaks frequently. To access, go to Oxford Dictionaries.
You might have to pay for an account. However, if you're a member of a UK library, access is free. Pop in your library card number (1) and click on the LOGIN button (2).
Now select the language.
Type in your word, then scroll down to FOR EDITORS AND PROOFREADERS. There you'll find the recommended break where the word should be broken and the hyphen inserted.
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.
I recently received a phone call from someone thinking about a career in proofreading. “I just wondered if you could spare five minutes to tell me how to go about starting a proofreading business.”
She was really sweet but at the word “five”, alarm bells started to ring. I can’t imagine a scenario where I would ever have thought that I could learn what I needed to know about running a business in five minutes …
“I love books. I've always loved books. I read two books a week. I'm a voracious reader! Always have been, always will be.” The alarm bells were getting louder. The thing is, I love eating (and I have a waistline to prove it). I've always loved eating. I eat three meals a day (at least). I'm a voracious eater. Always have been, always will be. But that doesn't make me a chef. It doesn't mean I can run a restaurant. So I let her talk for a bit longer and then I gently suggested that it’s a big decision – that it’s great that she loves reading – but that my best advice was for her to think about the other stuff, too: the clients she’s going to target, what training she needs to do, how she’s going to promote herself, what knowledge base she can bring to the table in terms of specialist experience (prior job, hobbies, education, etc.). I told her that there are a lot of us out there already doing this, which makes it competitive.
I could have talked for hours but I don't have hours to spare. And she asked for five minutes so that’s how long I talked for. I thought I’d done quite well (given the time span available) to point her in the direction of a small but substantive group of resources – none of which would cost her more than six quid, and most of which are free – that she could use when making the monumental decision to set up a new proofreading business. A silence followed on the other end of the phone. I assumed she was frantically scribbling down all this information. “The thing is, I really want to make a career out of this but there’s so much to get your head around. That’s why I called. I just need to know how to go about it. I've always loved books, always loved reading. I think I’d be good at this. I notice spelling errors when I read magazines and books and newspapers and I really love words.” I sensed I'd not told her what she'd hoped to hear. I don't for a minute think she expected me to hand her a client list on a plate. She seemed very pleasant, genuine and passionate. Rather, I suspect she'd thought that the task might be easier or more straightforward; that in these days of reduced employment opportunities, editorial freelancing would be something that was relatively simple to slip into. I tried to move her back to the issues in hand, reiterated that the resources I'd pointed her towards would help her work out "how to go about it", and I emphasized that it’s not a love of books and words that will enable her to run an editorial business. Because that’s not enough. The fact is that in the list of things that enable a proofreader (or any other type of editorial freelancer) to run a successful business, loving books is so far down on the list that I've yet to be convinced it's worth giving it a number. There is a lot of information to read and a lot of issues to consider. And so there should be. Running an editorial business isn't something you can learn to do in five minutes. It requires research, patience and commitment. It requires the wearing of many hats. It requires perseverance, business savvy and hard graft. If you love books, words and reading – great. But all that tells you is that you love books, words and reading. It doesn't tell you if you have skills such as planning, marketing, time management, financial management and accounting, client-appropriate training, an understanding of industry expectations, taking the ups with the downs, creative thinking, client negotiations, networking, and business development. And if you want to run a proofreading or editing business you’ll need all of the above in spades or you'll have to want to learn them. I’ll say it again, loving books isn't enough. There are no short cuts. Your dentist doesn't get to stick a needle in your gum by taking short cuts. Your cleaner doesn't get to make your house sparkle by taking short cuts. Your five-year-old doesn't learn to read because their teacher takes short cuts. While colleagues will be delighted to advise you of various different approaches and tactics to help you on your way, ultimately you'll have to put in a lot of hard work. It doesn't matter whether you're Richard Branson, Bill Gates, or lil' ol' Louise Harnby – when you set up a business, the basic rules of the game are the same. Do the planning, do the research and never, ever forget that you’re considering running a business first and foremost, whatever your likes and dislikes are. If you still think becoming a proofreader (or editor) sounds like a great idea, welcome on board. It really is a great job, and there’s a huge international community of editorial colleagues waiting to engage with you. And if you happen to love books, reading and words, all the better. Just as long as you remember that, in itself, that's not enough. Good luck, and see you on the other side!
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.
Considering setting up a proofreading business? Or perhaps you're already on the journey. Here are 10 things you need to know and 10 more you need to do.
10 things you need to know ...
10 things you need to do ...
If you'd like more comprehensive guidance about starting a proofreading business, my books might be just the ticket. Written for those with no prior publishing or editorial experience, these practical guides take the new starter, step by step, through the basics of planning an editorial career and marketing their services.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with independent authors of commercial fiction, particularly crime, thriller and mystery writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Society for Editors and Proofreaders (SfEP), 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. A note from Louise: The Parlour's series on Work Choices for editorial freelancers continues with this super post from my colleague Liz Jones. It's particularly pertinent given a recent discussion on the Society for Editors and Proofreaders forum about getting work based on particular subject specialisms. Several contributors made the point that it's not only the freelancer's education and career skills that come in useful, but also practical and hobby-based skills and knowledge. With that in mind, I was delighted when Liz suggested a guest article on editing cookery and craft titles. Read on ... When you’re thinking about potential areas of publishing to target or publishers to focus your attentions on, it’s worth considering the cookery and craft* genres. They account for a big chunk of the market, with hundreds of titles being published anew every year, or updated or repackaged. The two genres share certain characteristics and considerations. *Under the banner of "craft" I’m including a range of practical subjects, including knitting, crochet, dressmaking, spinning yarn, quilting, painting, drawing, origami, calligraphy, jewellery making … the list is long. Who can do it? In the case of both cookery and craft books, while practical experience and a working knowledge of the subject are both helpful, common sense and a willingness to engage with the material are arguably more important. It is your editorial skill set that you’re being hired for, and any subject-specific knowledge is a bonus. If it’s a subject area that’s a little outside your comfort zone, by all means confess this to the in-house editor, but don’t necessarily let it stop you taking on the job. Having said that, if you are passionate about any particular practical discipline, do draw attention to this when you approach a publisher in these genres. It’ll make you instantly more memorable – and employable. Does practical experience help? You don’t need to be a fantastic cook or a highly accomplished needleworker to successfully edit or proofread a book on the subject. However, some practical experience helps. Take cooking: it’s desirable if you can picture what a pinch of salt looks like, or 4 tablespoons of flour, or 50 grams of butter. A basic understanding of the science behind baking a cake, or a working knowledge of how to make pastry will stand you in good stead. You might not be the next Heston Blumenthal, but you need to care about why a recipe might work … and why it might not. It also helps if you’re into food – possibly even passionately so, even if you don’t do much cooking yourself. (In our house, my husband is the main cook, but we talk about food and recipes all the time.) Know your ingredients. Keep up with food trends. And read lots of cookery books! If you love food, this won’t be a chore. By reading around the subject you’ll get a feel for how recipes are put together, what new ingredients are on the market, how different publishers present similar kinds of information, and what’s desirable in a finished recipe. For craft, it’s important to understand how publishers like their instructional text presented, and to be able to get to grips with the specific jargon relating to the subject. Again, familiarity gained from reading the kinds of titles you’d like to work on is essential. Once you get to know the conventions of the genre, you are as equipped as anyone else to spot problems and inconsistencies in the text. This applies especially to proofreading, and once you’re more comfortable with the subject area it’s straightforward to move into copy-editing if you want. It can be reassuring to know that for cooking, crochet and knitting titles, publishers will often employ a freelance tester or pattern checker who will make up the recipes or projects, as well as an editor and proofreader. What characteristics do these books share? Both genres depend on the reader being able to understand a set of instructions in order to be able to exactly reproduce something at home. Therefore these instructions need to be unambiguous and clear. They should also be free from waffle – the reader does not want to get lost in flowery descriptions while they’ve got their hands covered in icing sugar or superglue. It’s likely you’ll have to wrestle with units of measurement. Sometimes these are given in both metric and imperial, and many jobs therefore require a certain amount of conversion or checking of measurements, or adding-in of missing information. This may seem dull – but it becomes considerably less boring when you consider how much your reader is depending on these measurements being accurate. You need to develop a sixth sense for those that seem "a bit off". Surely they can’t mean 15 kg salt? Why on earth would a patchwork skirt for a human take 35 metres of corduroy? How could a delicate beaded necklace possibly be threaded on wire 25 mm thick? Practical texts are often integrated with images, often in the form of numbered step-by-step sequences. Sometimes the publisher will send you the pictures to look at, and sometimes they won’t. If you have the pictures you need to look closely at each one against the text it accompanies. In this way, especially for craft subjects, a willingness to engage with visual material is important. With instructional text, editing can be about moulding the material to fit a publisher’s paradigm. Many craft titles are templated before they are written, with the author writing to fit a set of presentation layouts. Finally, we’ve all been taught to reject the received wisdom that the passive voice is inherently evil. However, this is less the case when editing cookery and craft texts. The active voice is often preferred – some publishers will even specify this. And when editing instructions, the imperative is often used to get the point across quickly. How should I approach a craft or cookery edit? The heart of any cookery or craft book is the recipes or projects. These often break down into three parts:
Editing the introduction is just like editing any other kind of text – try to retain the author’s voice as much as possible, as this is what gives the book its particular flavour. Then there’s the list of ingredients, or tools and materials in the case of craft. This is where you need to start getting really picky about consistency. The publisher’s house style will often tell you what units of measurement they prefer – metric, imperial, by volume (spoons and cups), or some combination of these. It may also detail exactly how you should phrase the specification of particular items. For instance, is it "a handful of chopped fresh parsley"? Or "a handful of fresh parsley, chopped"? It doesn't only look messy to vary this kind of information – it also makes a difference to accuracy. The ingredients (or materials) should usually be listed in the order in which they are used in the method or instructions. This area often requires your attention, and it should go without saying that every ingredient listed needs to be mentioned in the method, and that every ingredient mentioned in the method needs to be listed. The method or instructions for a dish or project are essential to get right. You need to weed out any ambiguities and inaccuracies; don’t leave the reader wondering what to do with that bowl of freshly melted chocolate, or one bead short of a pair of earrings. Eliminate as much redundancy as you can so that the text is clear and to the point. If a process is repeated throughout the book, try to keep the wording that describes it the same or very similar each time, so the reader understands that it’s the same process. Make sure you understand everything, and can picture what is meant to be happening, even if the subject matter is slightly unfamiliar to you. Don’t assume that an expert reader will be able to understand a description of a process that makes no sense to you. And do watch out for silly mistakes, such as an oven that gets preheated the night before the rest of the recipe happens. What work opportunities are there? In terms of the work you might be asked to do on craft or cookery titles, of course there is copy-editing and proofreading, as well as project managing. There is also plenty of work to be found if you can turn your hand to Americanizing or anglicizing text. Cookery and craft titles, as mentioned, frequently feature units of measurement, and converting these into a format acceptable for the US or UK market is a bit of a headache. This is where you come in. In this case, being prepared to work onscreen, in InDesign, can be a major benefit; publishers often make the UK or US edition of a book in a great hurry after the primary edition has gone into production. As well as the measurements, you’ll also need to adjust the grammar and vocabulary, of course. Both craft and cookery subjects feature a lot of jargon that is different in UK and US English (frying pan/skillet, coriander/cilantro, selvedge/selvage, double crochet/single crochet, cast off/bind off … etc.). There are many specialist publishers out there, and it’s worth approaching packagers, too, who often produce complex, highly illustrated titles for major publishers and can be a great source of freelance work. So … should I go for it? Craft in particular might not seem the most highbrow area of book publishing (let’s face it, no one is ever going to win the Man Booker Prize for a book about painting watercolour flowers), but it can be interesting, and reasonably well paid once you get used to the subject matter. You’re also fairly likely to work on books that you’ll later see in your local Waterstones, which can be a buzz in itself. Cookery and craft books are often gorgeously designed and produced, which is nice if you’re a bit of a book fetishist (aren’t we all?). You might even have the thrill of working on a high-profile title that receives lots of media attention – though in this case, don’t necessarily expect to be able to tell anyone about it. At the end of the day, you’re not helping to disseminate information that will one day bring about world peace, or a cure for some terrible disease. But you will have the satisfaction of knowing that the books you work on are helping to make a lot of people happy – or, if you mess up, extremely frustrated. Copyright Liz Jones 2013 About Liz: Liz Jones has worked as a full-time freelance book editor and project manager for the past five years, following ten years as an in-house editor for four different publishers – the last of which was a packager specializing in practical art and craft titles. Her work has two distinct strands: highly illustrated non-fiction books, and educational resources. When not editing she is usually playing with her children, playing the flugelhorn or writing. Visit Liz Jones Editorial Solutions for more information.
If you're looking for an easy and free way to schedule your editing and proofreading projects – clients, income, payment-due dates – this free Excel template is for you.
Keeping track of editing and proofreading projects is essential for every professional editor.
Download this free Excel template to get you started. The figures are completely made up but show the basic structure. If you're a newbie, you can use this as an interim way of managing your accounts and your schedule; one less thing to worry about for now! This template includes a number of columns with formulae that I find useful.
I like to differentiate between different stages of the process:
It helps me to see, at a glance, what's going on in my schedule, especially when a client asks about availability. I also track how the job will be returned to a client: via email, the post office or courier (at the client's expense). The UK's HMRC allows the freelancer to offset a percentage of mileage costs against their tax liabilities. There's a summary box at the bottom of the spreadsheet. This shows me my average earnings, my average hourly rate and my average rate per 1,000 words. These figures are really only for curiosity, since each job varies quite considerably in size, type, budget, difficulty and speed. If I was doing any serious analysis I'd look more deeply into the data to assess whether there are patterns in terms of, say, client type, service offered and subject matter. Still, it's useful for grabbing quick-and-dirty data for annual comparisons. Feel free to copy, amend or ignore as you see fit. You can add your own formulae to particular columns if the way in which you charge for your work differs.
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. A note from Louise: Do you issue a contract before you start an editorial project? If not, take a gander at the advice from my editorial colleague Cassie Armstrong. Working without a net Most of you wouldn't think of beginning an editing project, or making a major purchase, without a contract in place. I was like that, too. I never began a new project without either a signed contract on file or an email where both parties made it clear what they would and would not do. But I didn't do that with a recent project. That mistake cost me time and money. Take a minute and learn from my mistake. I answered a job post for a proofreader a few weeks ago. The project was interesting, so I sent an email to the person who posted it. We talked about what the work involved, why a proofreader was needed, and about my hourly fees. I was thrilled to be accepted because the project piqued my interest. I could relate. But in my haste to begin, I didn't take the time to discuss a contract with my client. I should have stopped right there and corrected this mistake. Ask if there’s a budget In the early talking stages, when you and your potential client are discussing the project, take the time to ask if there is a budget for the work. I usually always ask. If I like the project and want to be involved, I will often times accept it even if the potential client’s budget is lower than my hourly fee. That decision is up to you, but it’s one that you need to consider in the beginning talking stages for any project. Money isn’t the only reason to be involved. In the recent project I suggested an hourly fee but didn't ask about a budget. For the next piece of work, I plan to avoid this mistake and ask the question. It would be in your best interest to ask the question, too. Remember to ask it during the project’s conversational phase, before you accept job. Don’t do anything without a contract I didn’t suggest or push for a contract because my client wanted the project completed in a week. I thought requesting a contract would slow down the process. This was my third mistake. Always take the time to draw up a contract. If you don’t want to be that formal, you can write the potential client a letter that explains what you will do and how you will do it. The letter and contract don’t have to be complicated and KOK Edit has some good examples that you can review and modify to suit your needs in her Copyeditors’ Knowledge Base (Contract between editor and book publisher; Contract between editor and client). An email will also serve as a contract If you don’t want to draw up a formal contract and take the time needed for both parties to sign it and return it, an email where you specify what you will do, how long the project will take, and the overall or hourly fee will also suffice as long as you have a statement of agreement from your client in a return email. This acceptance email will serve as the contract for the job. Ask for a deposit Just as a contract is important in any project, so is a deposit. Depending on the length of the project, you may want up to 50 per cent in advance and payment on billable hours every two weeks. The amount of deposit as well as the project’s billing cycle is as individual as the project and editor. These items should also be spelled out in the contract. For some small projects, I have edited without a deposit. For me, it’s a gut reaction. Just as each contract is different, so is requiring a deposit. For short projects with rapid turnarounds, deposits may not work. Do what works for you and is best for your circumstances at the time. In all cases, make sure you have complete contact information and consider using PayPal. Add a kill fee No matter what kind of contract you write, either traditional, a letter or email, make sure the contract contains a kill fee. The kill fee will save you a lot of grief and will provide an out for both you and your client if things don’t progress the way you'd planned. Just as a deposit helps protect you from doing a lot of work and then not getting paid for it, a kill fee, cancellation fee, or rejection fee serves a similar purpose. The kill fee ensures that you’re paid for all the work you’ve done up to the time the client notifies you that they are not going to work with you any longer, or when you decide to walk away from the project for one reason or another. Both you and the client may decide to cancel the project for any number of reasons, including timing, money, or change of focus. You both may decide to cancel the job because you aren't happy with the initial work, may think that you aren't working well together, or may not want to continue for some other reason. Whatever the grounds, the kill fee helps cover your billable time and any tangible expenses (delivery fees, for example) incurred so far in the project. Make sure you understand what the project entails Through conversations and drafts, make sure that the project requirements are crystal clear for all parties involved.
Offer to fix any errors If you make a mistake in a project because of a lack of communication or because the client is not happy with one aspect of your work, offer to fix the problem. Taking a few hours to make a client happy will be your best reward in the long run. It will make you feel good and there’s also the possibility of receiving future work from a satisfied customer. Keep the lines of communication open Communication in a project is key. You can communicate via email or via the telephone. Establish the best way to keep in touch before the project begins and discuss how many times a week you will be in contact. If the client prefers telephone conversations, exchange numbers. Ask when the best time to talk is and keep in mind any different time zones between you both. Keep all conversations brief and on point. Be courteous but businesslike. Don’t allow yourself to be bullied If you find yourself in the position where you’re doing more than the contract specified, take a minute and regroup. Go over the contract specifics. Make sure to review the specifics and discuss the new project requirements with your client. Explain that the new requirements will take more time and will cost more than the original fee. Offer to fulfil the new requirements for an additional fee and specify how this will be paid. Keep all conversations light but remain in control. Don’t allow yourself to be pushed into doing something that you’re not comfortable with or making changes that weren’t discussed previously. If you have to make changes or correct an error, don’t allow the client to deduct the cost of these changes from the original project fee. Explain your position to your client and stand your ground. Standing your ground is something that many of us aren't comfortable with. However, in business, and real life, it’s necessary if you don’t want to be bullied. If a situation like this occurs early on in the project, the kill fee you included in the contract, letter, or email will come in handy. Use it and walk away. Never put yourself in a situation where you are not in control or where you have second thoughts about a client or project. It isn't worth it. Bottom line Bottom line: a well-designed contract should avoid any potential problems in a project. Before I begin another project, either with an individual or with a publisher, I plan to make sure that the job specifics are spelled out and crystal clear. I will also add a kill fee to the contract and if there’s an inkling that the project is not going well, I will walk away. Copyright 2012 Cassie Armstrong Cassie Armstrong is a professional editor and the founder of MorningStar Editing. She's a recovering college English teacher and member of the Editorial Freelancers Association with over six years' editing experience. Her clients are primarily individual authors and trade publishers who specialize in fiction and non-fiction subjects, from biographies to YA novels. Cassie enjoys working with yarn and thread in her spare time and is developing a complementary speciality in editing books about crafting. Contact Cassie via her website MorningStar Editing, Twitter @MorningStarEdit, and LinkedIn.
You don’t necessarily need to have a legal background to proofread law books. If you’re comfortable with often dense and highly complex material, huge numbers of footnotes, and lengthy citations – and the legalese doesn't scare you to death – then this could be the work for you!
The many faces of the law
The law covers just about every aspect of human life, so the books on offer tackle a multitude of subjects. I’ve worked on legal books with a focus on public health, marine conservation, labour law, genetic resources, constitution building, piracy, family law, comparative law, European law, intellectual property rights, religion, climate change, competition law and cartelism, and environmental governance. Since I came to this work with a strong background in the social sciences, it suited me down to the ground. I’ve also been pleasantly surprised by the readability of most of the law books I’ve proofread. They’re often written by lawyers for lawyers (or by law professors for their colleagues and students) so you won’t be confronted by the impenetrable sea of words that often appear in legal documents. The authors aim to communicate with their readership just like any other writer. If you have experience of proofreading high-level academic books and journals, legal work shouldn’t present you with a problem.
What are clients looking for?
Rather than making assumptions based on my own experience, I asked one of my publisher clients to tell me what she looks for in a legal proofreader. Here’s a summary of our discussion:
Other points to bear in mind
Footnotes (or endnotes) tend to be lengthy. Sometimes it can feel like there’s more text in the notes than in the main body of the book.
Should you?
Actually, none of the above issues is problematic as long as you have a good concentration span and you aren’t surrounded by distractions. Distractions and proofreading don’t tend to go well together at any time, but with legal proofreading you may end up gnawing off your own arm if you don’t have the space to do the work without interruption. Working with law books is not unlike working with any other specialism (social science, STM, fiction) in that you need to be able to work within a framework of industry-recognized citation conventions, house style guides, and author preferences, while all the time employing a good old-fashioned dose of common sense. Talking to your client so that you understand what’s expected is crucial whatever kind of work you’re doing because only in that way will you understand the implications of your mark-up. When I was first approached with an offer to work in this field, I accepted it with some trepidation. A few years on, I can honestly say that I thoroughly enjoy it. Proofreading law books can be a rewarding and highly informative experience. As the world changes, so does the law. Globalization, public health awareness, climate change, and the birth of the internet have given rise to new dimensions within the law and I rather like getting paid to read about them.
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.
If you’re building your editorial business, you can’t afford to sit back and hope the work will come to you – too many colleagues will be taking a more proactive approach.
So, this time around, I thought it would be fun to pretend to be someone else – someone with a different educational background and career history.
I’m going to pretend that I’m new to the field but that I have completed some sort of recognized training in proofreading/editing and have joined my national editorial society. My technical skills are there but I’ve got to work out how to get myself noticed, and how to make myself stand out. So who am I today? My name’s Basil Rhoueny [it’s the best anagram I could come up with – alternatives on a postcard].
So how am I going to create awareness of my new business? I know it’s not going to happen overnight, but I have a plan! That plan starts with providing clarity for myself about who I am and what I have to offer. At first glance, this is me:
My name is Basil Rhoueny, and I’m a fully trained copyeditor and a Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP).
|
|
|
All
Around The World
Audio Books
Author Chat
Author Interviews
Author Platform
Author Resources
Blogging
Book Marketing
Books
Branding
Business Tips
Choosing An Editor
Client Talk
Conscious Language
Core Editorial Skills
Crime Writing
Design And Layout
Dialogue
Editing
Editorial Tips
Editorial Tools
Editors On The Blog
Erotica
Fiction
Fiction Editing
Freelancing
Free Stuff
Getting Noticed
Getting Work
Grammar Links
Guest Writers
Indexing
Indie Authors
Lean Writing
Line Craft
Link Of The Week
Macro Chat
Marketing Tips
Money Talk
Mood And Rhythm
More Macros And Add Ins
Networking
Online Courses
PDF Markup
Podcasting
POV
Proofreading
Proofreading Marks
Publishing
Punctuation
Q&A With Louise
Resources
Roundups
Self Editing
Self Publishing Authors
Sentence Editing
Showing And Telling
Software
Stamps
Starting Out
Story Craft
The Editing Podcast
Training
Types Of Editing
Using Word
Website Tips
Work Choices
Working Onscreen
Working Smart
Writer Resources
Writing
Writing Tips
Writing Tools
April 2024
March 2024
October 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
March 2014
January 2014
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
June 2013
February 2013
January 2013
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
|
|