RE: Copyediting. Why not in-house?

[Aline Soules <aline.soules@csueastbay.edu>]

As someone who does a fair amount of copy editing, both on the 
job and on the side, some points:

What is "light" copy editing?  Editor and author may not agree. 
I often find more adjustments than I originally envisioned, 
despite the tools you describe.  Also, the text may or may not 
require minimal work, but regularly, I find the footnotes require 
extensive work and that work is not caught by spell-check, 
although it will be aided by EndNotes or its equivalent, if your 
campus has that available (ours can't afford it).

Setting up footnotes involves knowing the intended publication 
and what is wanted, some of which may not be served by EndNotes 
as many publications have their own "quirks." The footnotes often 
require extensive reformatting and additional research to find 
the full bibliographic information which is frequently 
incomplete.  Now that there are new rules emerging for electronic 
sources, I also find that the footnotes in papers are structured 
to be reflective of the original print medium and do not include 
the information reflecting the electronic sources. This is 
further complicated now by such things as the inclusion of the 
DOI (a new APA requirement), and so on.  "Light" is not the word 
for this work.

If you were to create a hierarchy of "light" vs. "heavier" 
editing, you would have to agree on the definitions up front, 
which would take some negotiation and your time - for which you 
would not be paid.  It might also set up a less than cordial 
arrangement in the end, something that would likely impede the 
progress of the work.  I would suggest that continuing with a 
standard rate for copy editing, without delving into these 
subjective definitions would be wiser.

I know the rates you quote are valid; however, not everyone 
charges by the page; some charge by the hour, providing an 
estimate to the client of the anticipated time the item will take 
to copy edit.  The editor will inform the client if the estimate 
is likely to change significantly and will do so as soon as that 
becomes apparent.  It's a different model, but one that takes 
into account the differences in the amount of work from page to 
page.  While some may find this too open-ended, it guarantees a 
per-hour rate that provides reasonable payment for work that 
enhances the author's submission.

As a final note, if you bring this in-house, you might be flooded 
with work, once the word is out. You might also find, as I do, 
that many faculty in the institution all of a sudden expect this 
work to be done for free.  It's supposed to be part of what the 
institution does to support them.  I have run into this 
frequently - the attitude simply changes once it's in-house.  If 
you can convince faculty to build this into their grants, 
enabling them to go out and hire someone, then it's no longer 
in-house and they are more accepting of the situation.  Once it's 
in-house, though, look out.  It's "just a quick once over," 
"shouldn't take any time, really," "isn't difficult work" 
(although they can't do it themselves), and other statements of 
the sort.  YOu would have to set very strict parameters before 
you started.

Aline Soules Cal State East Bay
aline.soules@csueastbay.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Heather Morrison
Sent: Mon 3/31/2008 4:49 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Copyediting.  Why not in-house?

One of the services offered by publishers is copyediting. Correct 
grammar, spelling, etc., is important; but, wouldn't it make more 
sense to do this in-house?

The rates for freelance copyeditors range from about $5 per page 
for light copyediting (one freelancer I found on the web this 
morning quotes $2 - $5 per page).

Picture a highly proficient secretary or editor copyediting a 
manuscript that has been written carefully and gone through a 
grammar / spellcheck.  Copyediting a page shouldn't take very 
long, should it?

There are good reasons why peer review should be blind or double- 
blind.  Not so copyediting.  Having a copyeditor work directly 
with the author is much more efficient than working indirectly 
through a journal editor.

A copyeditor who gets to know the author and their research will 
have more understanding of the topic matter, be less likely to 
make technical errors, and will be more respectful of the 
author's stylistic preferences.

In addition to hiring freelancers, other options are creating 
jobs for students with subject expertise and good language 
skills, or secretaries.  Perhaps the same staff could take 
responsibility for depositing the author's final manuscript in 
the appropriate open access archive(s)?  The skills and 
experience such staff would develop would lend themselves well to 
providing additional help to the researcher, such as helping with 
the paperwork involved in grant applications, thus freeing up the 
researcher's time, for research.

If copyediting is done in-house, it makes sense to me that 
publishers who charge for this service, should provide a 
discount.

Copyediting does not always cost, of course.  There are people 
who enjoy copyediting, and provide this service on a volunteer 
basis.

Any opinion expressed in this e-mail is that of the author alone, 
and does not represent the opinion or policy of BC Electronic 
Library Network or Simon Fraser University Library.

Heather Morrison, MLIS
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com