Do you have resources on strong editorial processes?
January 9, 2023 5:45 AM
Can you point me toward resources about effective editorial practices?
At work, I'm responsible for getting some content approved and published. However, our process has devolved into an endless review process where people just keep making small changes and holding up approval. Help me avoid this.
Unfortunately, I have people in the review chain who provide edits/review and then have asked to again review the draft (with their edits incorporated). My experience is that some people will make small, unnecessary changes any time they see a document. This creates a frustrating, spiraling editorial process where it is very hard to declare a document finished.
Do you know of resources that document best practices in an editorial workflow? Googling yields lots of search-engine optimized information about creating good web content. But I think I'm looking for resources with professional-level best practices for communications teams of large organizations.
Thank you!
Unfortunately, I have people in the review chain who provide edits/review and then have asked to again review the draft (with their edits incorporated). My experience is that some people will make small, unnecessary changes any time they see a document. This creates a frustrating, spiraling editorial process where it is very hard to declare a document finished.
Do you know of resources that document best practices in an editorial workflow? Googling yields lots of search-engine optimized information about creating good web content. But I think I'm looking for resources with professional-level best practices for communications teams of large organizations.
Thank you!
Like LizardBreath, I've found that there really are people who will keep making changes forever. In my case we often can't route around the approver. What we've done is create an editing checklist process that discourages small tweaks/grammar and copy editing after that phase is over. The checklist is fairly thorough in terms of what it asks people to do at each phase, and include elements like a content edit (e.g., before we get into the nitty gritty of wordsmithing, is this document even what we want? are we solid on our conclusions and recommendations?), format edit, copy editing, a final review of the published "proof," and so on.
High-level leaders would typically not even be asked to participate in the format and copy editing element, so you could ask them to, and use the checklist to nudge them toward, an initial focus on overall content and the technical merits of the approach. We might follow this with a second review of a more polished draft that does ask them to make those small, nitpicking tweaks to anything that is technical but not to make grammar/copy edits.
I've found that it's difficult or impossible to ask folks simply not to do the wordsmithing, because technical experts often do combine those changes that don't need to be in their wheelhouse (say, catching further vs. farther) and those that do (say, a word choice that in any other document may just be a style preference, but in your field might be a term of art, like set in mathematics or theory in a research field). We've been pretty successful using the checklist approach to separate those two.
posted by neutralhydrogen at 7:04 AM on January 9, 2023
High-level leaders would typically not even be asked to participate in the format and copy editing element, so you could ask them to, and use the checklist to nudge them toward, an initial focus on overall content and the technical merits of the approach. We might follow this with a second review of a more polished draft that does ask them to make those small, nitpicking tweaks to anything that is technical but not to make grammar/copy edits.
I've found that it's difficult or impossible to ask folks simply not to do the wordsmithing, because technical experts often do combine those changes that don't need to be in their wheelhouse (say, catching further vs. farther) and those that do (say, a word choice that in any other document may just be a style preference, but in your field might be a term of art, like set in mathematics or theory in a research field). We've been pretty successful using the checklist approach to separate those two.
posted by neutralhydrogen at 7:04 AM on January 9, 2023
I find that this often happens when people don't realize that there will be other layers of editorial and/or copyediting review. They don't know (or don't remember) if the document has been editing yet, so they think they have to do it. You might consider a version of a RACI (responsible, accountable, consulted, informed) matrix for this. You would list every stage of the process for a document as rows in the matrix, then every person or role as columns. Within each cell, you indicate if the person is responsible (in this case, for reviewing/commenting), accountable (for getting those comments/edits made), consulted (before changes are made, especially as someone else noted, if there are technical terms of art involved), or informed ("copy editing has been completed). You could then circulate the RACI matrix as the first page of the document so that everyone understands both what stage the document is in and what they are expected to do at the current stage. Of course, you'd remove the RACI before delivering (which would be a row in the matrix so that everyone knows who is going to do that).
posted by OrangeDisk at 7:27 AM on January 9, 2023
posted by OrangeDisk at 7:27 AM on January 9, 2023
Yeah, the "Thanks, I've made your changes" email has resulted in people wanting to see (and edit!) the changes - hence my need for an intervention.
At this point I'm leaning toward something like:
- First round of review is a strategic review, insert edits as comments covering main messages, supporting points, and overall logic.
- Second round of review is language, focusing on sentences or graphs that don't work, problem phrasing, and any errors. (With this note: there are too many cooks in the kitchen, please avoid edits of preference.)
...but, I think I would have more success instituting this (and holding some reluctant and irritating people accountable to it) if I can point toward specific best practices and workflows common in other publishing organizations.
RACI matrix is appealing, thank you OrangeDisk.
posted by entropone at 7:29 AM on January 9, 2023
At this point I'm leaning toward something like:
- First round of review is a strategic review, insert edits as comments covering main messages, supporting points, and overall logic.
- Second round of review is language, focusing on sentences or graphs that don't work, problem phrasing, and any errors. (With this note: there are too many cooks in the kitchen, please avoid edits of preference.)
...but, I think I would have more success instituting this (and holding some reluctant and irritating people accountable to it) if I can point toward specific best practices and workflows common in other publishing organizations.
RACI matrix is appealing, thank you OrangeDisk.
posted by entropone at 7:29 AM on January 9, 2023
In professional publishing, the aim is usually three passes, checklists are used, and preferred style guides are the latest Chicago Manual (which is overkill, but dominates everywhere) and the preferred dictionary is the latest Merriam-Webster Collegiate.
I would strongly recommend using a pass-specific checklist template, which people can check off when they're done to keep your fellow editors on track. For maximum accuracy, you want everyone to focus on content at the same time, or grammar at the same time, or proofreading. Just take care not to start the copyediting/proofreading passes until the content is complete.
posted by Violet Blue at 9:50 AM on January 9, 2023
I would strongly recommend using a pass-specific checklist template, which people can check off when they're done to keep your fellow editors on track. For maximum accuracy, you want everyone to focus on content at the same time, or grammar at the same time, or proofreading. Just take care not to start the copyediting/proofreading passes until the content is complete.
- 1st — developmental editing: Ideas, content, order, approach, tone
- 2nd — copyediting: grammar, clarity
- 3rd — proofreading: consistency, spelling, typography
posted by Violet Blue at 9:50 AM on January 9, 2023
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by LizardBreath at 6:24 AM on January 9, 2023