Copy Editor

The "five Cs" summarize the copy editor's job: Make the copy clear, correct, concise,
complete, and consistent. Copy editors should make it say what it means, and mean
what it says.

Typically, copy editing involves

correcting spelling, punctuation, grammar, terminology and jargon, timelines,
and semantics, and ensuring that the text adheres to the publisher's style. They
may shorten the text, to improve it or to fit length limits. This is particularly so in
periodical publishing, where copy must be cut to fit the layout, and the text changed to
ensure there are no 'short lines'.

Often, copy editors are also responsible for adding any "display copy", such
as headlines, standardized headers and footers, and photo captions. And although
proofreading is a distinct task from copy editing, frequently it is one performed by copy
editors.

Copy editors are expected to ensure that the text flows, that it is sensible, fair, and
accurate, and that any legal problems have been addressed. If a passage is unclear or
an assertion seems questionable, the copy editor may ask the writer to clarify it.
Sometimes, the copy editor is the only person, other than the writer, to read an entire
text before publication, and for this reason newspaper copy editors are considered the
publication's last line of defense.[1]

The role of the copy editor varies considerably from one publication to another.
Some newspaper copy editors select stories from wire service copy; others use desktop
publishing software to do design and layout work that once was the province of design
and production specialists.

[edit]Changes in the field

Traditionally, the copy editor would read a printed or written manuscript, manually
marking it with editor's correction marks. Today, the manuscript is more often read on
acomputer display and corrections are entered directly.

The nearly-universal adoption of computerised systems for editing and layout in

newspapers and magazines has also led copy editors to become more involved in
design and the technicalities of production. Technical knowledge is therefore sometimes
considered as important as writing ability, though this is more true in journalism than it is
inbook publishing. With the transformation of journalism in recent years, some news
organizations are lowering the emphasis on editing, though at the expense of copy
quality.[2] Hank Glamann, co-founder of the American Copy Editors Society, made the
following observation about ads for copy editor positions at American newspapers:

We want them to be skilled grammarians and wordsmiths and write bright and engaging
headlines and must know Quark. But, often, when push comes to shove, we will let
every single one of those requirements slide except the last one, because you have to
know that in order to push the button at the appointed time.[3]

[edit]Traits, skills, and training

Besides an excellent command of language, copy editors need broad general
knowledge for spotting factual errors, good critical thinking skills in order to recognize
inconsistencies, interpersonal skills for dealing with writers and other editors, attention
to detail, and a sense of style. Also, they must establish priorities and balance a desire
for perfection with the necessity to follow deadlines.

Many copy editors have a college degree, often in journalism, English,

or communications. In the United States, copy editing is often taught as a college
journalism course, though its name varies. The courses often include news
design and pagination.

In the United States, The Dow Jones Newspaper Fund sponsors internships that
include two weeks of training. Also, the American Press Institute, the Poynter Institute,
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, UC San Diego Extension and
conferences of the American Copy Editors Society offer mid-career training for
newspaper copy editors and news editors (news copy desk supervisors).

Most U.S. newspapers and publishers give copy-editing job candidates an editing test
or a tryout. These vary widely and can include general items such as acronyms, current
events, math, punctuation, and skills such as the use of Associated Press style,
headline writing, infographics editing, and journalism ethics.

In both the U.S. and the U.K., there are no official bodies offering a single recognized
qualification.
In the U.K., several companies provide a range of courses unofficially recognised within
the industry. Training may be on the job or through publishing courses, privately run
seminars, and correspondence courses of the Society for Editors and Proofreaders.
The National Council for the Training of Journalists also has a qualification for
subeditors.

Proofreading in printing and publishing

A proof copy is a version of a manuscript that has been typeset after copy editing. Proof
typescripts often contain typographical errors introduced by mistyping (hence the
word typo to refer to misplaced, missing or incorrect characters). Traditionally, a
proofreader checks the typeset copy and marks any errors using standard proofreaders'
marks showing what is to be corrected (such as those specified in style manuals, by
house style, or, more broadly, by the international standard ISO 5776, or, for English,
the British Standard BS-5261:2). This process may be known as a line edit. The proof is
then returned to the typesetter for correction. Correction-cycle proofs will typically have
one descriptive term, such as bounce, bump, or revise unique to the department or
organization and used for clarity to the strict exclusion of any other. It is a common
practice for all such corrections, no matter how slight, to be returned after typesetting to
a proofreader to be checked and initialed, thus establishing the principle of consistent
accuracy for proofreaders. This principle defines proofreading in general.

The term proofreading is sometimes used incorrectly to refer to copy editing. This is a
separate activity, although there is some overlap between the two. Proofreading
consists of reviewing any text, either hard copy on paper or electronic copy on
a computer, and checking for typos and formatting errors. This may be done either
against an original document or "blind" (without checking against any other source).
Many modern proofreaders are also required to take on some light copy-editing duties,
such as checking for grammar and consistency issues.

[edit]Qualifications
The educational-level of proofreaders in general is on par with that of their coworkers. A
perusal of online job-listings for proofreaders will show that although some specify
a college degree, as many do not. A company seeking a single proofreader to fill a
single position may be more likely to demand a degree as a way of reducing the
candidate-pool, whereas a company employing teams of typesetters and proofreaders
working around the clock would likely find the requirement irrelevant. Note that the
former position is more likely to be a multitasking desktop-publishing one in a
conventional office-setting, while the latter describes a more traditional single-purpose
printing environment. Either way, proofreading is not usually considered a preferred or
managerial-track position. In non-publishing environments it may even be rated
by Human Resources as a clerical skill generic to literacy itself. Where this is the case,
it isn't unusual for proofreaders to find themselves guaranteeing the accuracy of their
higher-paid coworkers.

[edit]Methods of proofreading
There are principally three traditional ways to proofread. The first is described above.
The second method is called copy holding or copy reading and employs two readers per
proof. The first reads the text aloud literally as it appears, usually at a comparatively fast
but uniform rate of speed. The second reader follows along and marks any pertinent
differences between what is read and what was typeset. This method is appropriate for
large quantities of boilerplate text where it is assumed that the number of errors will be
comparatively small.

Experienced copy holders employ various codes and verbal short-cuts that accompany
their reading. The spoken word digits for example means that the numbers about to be
read aren't words spelled out; and in a hole can mean that the upcoming segment of
text is within parenthesis. Bang means an exclamation point. A thump made with a
finger on the table represents the initial cap, comma,period, or similar obvious attribute
being read simultaneously. Thus the line of text (He said the address was 1234 Central
Blvd., and to hurry!) would be read aloud as: in a hole [thump] he said the address was
digits 1 2 3 4 [thump] central [thump] buluhvuhd [thump] comma and to hurry bang.
Mutual understanding is the only guiding principal, so codes evolve as opportunity
permits. In the above example, two thumps after buluhvuhd might be acceptable to
proofreaders familiar with the text.

The third method is often termed double reading. A single proofreader checks a proof in
the traditional manner, but then passes it on to a second reader who repeats the
process. Both initial the proof. Since copy holding and double-reading are based on
pairs of readers, responsibility is necessarily divided.

A fourth method, in which a proof is visually scanned but not read word for word, has
become common with computerization of typesetting and the popularization of word
processing. Many publishers have their own proprietary typesetting systems,[1] while
their customers use commercial programs such as Word. Before the data in a Word file
can be published, it must be converted into a format used by the publisher. The end
product is usually called a conversion. If a customer has already proofread the contents
of a file before submitting it to a publisher, there will be no reason for another
proofreader to re-read it from copy (although this additional service may be requested
and paid for). Instead, the publisher is held responsible only for formatting errors, such
as typeface, page width, and alignment of columns in tables; and production errors such
as text inadvertently deleted. To simplify matters further, a given conversion will usually
be assigned a specific template. Given typesetters of sufficient skill, experienced
proofreaders familiar with their typesetters' work can scan their pages with accuracy
without reading the text for errors that neither they nor their typesetters are responsible
for. Although scanning risks missing unique and unexpected errors, customers typically
find the benefit of a fast turnaround for volume work to be an acceptable trade-off.
[edit]Problems with conversions
Visual scanning by proofreaders can lead to conflicts with management. This is
because it will take a typesetter much longer to produce a conversion than it will take an
experienced reader to accurately scan it. This can lead often to the proofreader having
substantial amounts of downtime. Because proofreaders are usually hourly employees,
the managerial tendency is to expect that readers should not have downtime. Towards
that end, it may be expected that readers will scan to meet a deadline, but read word-
for-word when that pressure is off. The problem with this approach is that the two
different modes of work imply two different standards of quality. Also, proofreaders who
scan are implicitly accepting responsibility for meeting deadlines, whereas word-for-
word reading necessarily puts that burden on the scheduling-manager. In that latter
case, the proofreaders are exercising what is essentially a clerical function. Scanning
proofreaders, by contrast, are quasi-managers and as such will expect to be rewarded
with some form of managerial leeway or compensation. Thus do conversions by their
very nature put a premium on individual proofreaders' experience, skill, and commitment
at the expense of managerial authority.
[edit]Problems of proofreading
Due to the nature of their work, typesetters, word processors, and graphic artists are
expected and permitted to make mistakes. As a practical matter they are also free to
deliberately make a mistake at their own discretion to see if the proofreader catches it.
While this is not typical behavior, it can and does occur. If the department is also
supervised by one of those individuals -- as is often the case -- that power is magnified
because the supervisor can both make mistakes while passing judgment on
proofreaders who miss those mistakes. Proofreaders, even as they read from the same
copy under the same deadline as their typesetters, are, like purely administrative
managers, expected not to make mistakes and so are held fully accountable when they
do. But proofreaders typically earn neither managerial pay nor are entitled to managerial
latitude in doing their jobs -- they remain hourly employees both formally and in practice.
This problem is complicated by the fact that errors caught and corrected, no matter how
numerous, subtle, or surprising they may be, disappear from the feedback loop. No
record is kept of them and they merit no formal recognition. Only missed errors register.
Therefore only a lack of feedback meets daily baseline job-performance expectations.
However, annual reviews are not structured to acknowledge the lack of daily feedback
as an ongoing professional accomplishment. Also, proofreaders aren't productive in the
traditional sense because they necessarily spend critical amounts of time looking for
errors that, through no fault of their own, don't exist. Finally, proofreaders occupy the
last stage of production prior to publication. This is the point where any earlier causes of
deadline violations are necessarily less conspicuous.

When proofreaders aren't supervised by a co-working typesetter, word processor, or

graphic artist, that role is usually filled by an office manager with
a generic administrative background. Whoever the non-proofreading manager is, needs
unique to proofreading rarely drive the department. Radios, headphone-leakage,
office banter, repeated pages from overhead speakers -- all serve to distract and
fatigue. Radios are a particular problem because they play commercials and
commercials have numbers. Since proofreaders, being only human, can tune out noise
only to a limited extent, they often end up reading one set of numbers while listening to
another. But these matters aren't necessarily deemed worthy of serious concern
because, by common consent, they never apply during skills-testing. Therefore they
don't directly impact anyone but the proofreaders on an ongoing
basis. Sales representatives, higher management, and business owners would normally
recognize such working conditions as being against their own best interests, but they
are often hindered by administrative barriers, geographical separation, and a view of
proofreaders (individually or collectively) informed by the bias of negative-only
feedback.

[edit]Economics of proofreading
Proofreading cannot be fully cost-effective where volume or unpredictable work flow
prevents proofreaders from managing their own time. Examples would
be thermographic trade printers of business cards, network hubs, and newspapers. The
problem in each of these environments is that jobs can’t be put aside to be re-read as
needed. In the first and third example, volume and deadlines dictate that all jobs
be ASAP; in the second, jobs presently on-site at the hub are hurried, regardless of their
formal deadline, in favor of possible future work that may arrive unpredictably. Where
proofs can programmatically be read only once, quality will never be superior on
average. Instead, it will randomly but persistently fall below expectations. Even the best
and most experienced readers will not be able to consistently push the margin of
accuracy far enough to justify premium pay.

Production technology can also moot the need to pay a premium for proofreading. In the
example of thermographic business-card printing, even when there are no reprints,
there is considerable wastage of paper and ink generated in preparing each of the
press-runs, which are separated by color. When (as often happens) there is unused
space available on the plate, there is no increase in production cost for reprints that use
that space. Only when reprints are so numerous that they push production-staff into
significant overtime would they increase costs. But significant overtime is usually the
result of a high volume in new orders using up the eight-hour day. In such industries
proofreading would need only – and can only – make a marginal difference to be cost-
effective. As for the customers, many will never return even when their jobs are perfect,
and enough of those who do need a reprint will find the retailer’s cost-saving price to be
satisfactory enough to tolerate a late delivery.

Only where workload volume doesn’t compress all deadlines to ASAP and the workflow
is reasonably predictable can proofreading be worth a premium wage. Inflexible
deadlines mandate a delivery time, but in doing so they necessarily don’t mandate
delivery before that time. If deadlines are consistently maintained instead of arbitrarily
moved up, proofreaders can manage their own time by putting proofs aside at their own
discretion for re-reading later. Whether the interval is a few seconds or overnight, it
enables proofs to be viewed as both familiar and new. Where this procedure is followed,
managers can expect consistently superior performance. However, re-reading focuses
responsibility instead of dividing it (as double-reading and copy holding, both described
above, do) and obviously requires extra effort from proofreaders and a measure of
independence from management. Instead of managers controlling deadlines, deadlines
control managers, and leeway is passed to the proofreaders as well as commensurate
pay.

[edit]Proofreader testing
Practical job-training for proofreaders has declined along with its status as a craft,
although many commercial and college-level proofreading courses of varying quality
can be found online. There are also available numerous books that instruct the basics to
their readers. Such tools of self-preparation have by and large replaced formal
workplace-instruction but should be considered supplemental at best. However
applicants have gained their knowledge, they will have to demonstrate it during the
hiring process.

Proofreader applicants are tested primarily on their spelling, speed, and skill in finding
errors in sample text. Towards that end, they may be given a list of ten or twenty
classically difficult words and a proofreading test, both tightly timed. The proofreading
test will often have a maximum number of errors per quantity of text and a minimum
amount of time to find them. The goal of this approach is of course to identify those with
the best skill-set. The problem is that those applicants with the best skill-set may be
unwilling to make full use of it at the wage offered. In other words, artificially difficult
tests tend to produce overqualified candidates. Such candidates, once hired, may
consider that they have already done a considerable part of their job merely by having
demonstrated their qualification for it.

The above approach to proofreader testing is predicated on the assumption that: 1)

proofreaders have unique, innate skills and recondite knowledge -- or at least their
experience has provided them with the equivalent thereof; and 2) that such skills, no
matter how unique, innate, learned, or recondite are nevertheless available at whatever
wage the employer can afford. However, proofreading (as opposed to serious copy-
editing responsibilities) is mainly a matter of persistence. Although an experienced
proofreader can often quickly spot unique errors a neophyte would never catch, the
former will just as often be no better than the latter at finding all of the remaining errors
(if any) on the first try. Finally, proofreading has few practical tools to master.
Proofreader marks, line gauges, and pica poles are readily understood, and most shops
tend to rely on a fairly limited range of typefaces soon identifiable by name even by
individuals unschooled in the fundamentals of typography.

A contrasting approach to testing therefore is to identify and reward persistence more

than an arbitrarily high level of expertise. For the spelling portion of the test, that can be
accomplished by providing a dictionary; lengthening the word-list conspicuously; and
making clear that the test is not timed. For the proofreading portion, a style guide
(e.g., Chicago) and a suitable language-usage reference book can be provided. (Note
that knowing where to find needed information in such specialized books is itself an
effective test.) Removing the pressure of what is essentially an ASAP deadline will
identify those applicants with marginally greater reservoirs of persistence, stamina, and
commitment. At the same time, by mooting the need for applicants to make use of a
memorized list of difficult words and a studied knowledge of the more common
grammatical traps (lay, lie, lain), applicants learn that their success depends primarily
on a quality at least theoretically available to anyone at anytime without preparation.
Thus, no matter how difficult the test was in practice and regardless of the wage
ultimately offered, the successful applicant will have less grounds for feeling
overqualified.

Whatever the nature of the tests, some are administered by HR or Reception, while
others are assigned to a senior member the Composition staff. In the former case, it is
probably wise not to inquire whether actual copy-edits are to be made. This is because
administrative personnel, like the public at large, are less likely to know the difference
between such editing and strict proofreading, and so more likely to take the question as
a sign of inexperience. Applicants in this position should consider the test both a copy
editing and proofreading one. But when the test is administered by a Composition
employee, it is likely safe to ask outright if it includes copy editing, and a straight answer
is more likely to be forthcoming in response.