An American Editor

April 9, 2014

The Business of Editing: Finding Editors

Last week I wrote about subcontracting and said it isn’t a difficult thing to do from an administrative perspective (see The Business of Editing: Subcontracting). I did mention the one stumbling block: finding competent editors.

Finding a competent editor to subcontract to is difficult. There are lots of reasons for this difficulty, such as the lack of universal certification with reliable standards. In some subject areas and some countries this is less of a problem than in the United States, but even in those countries and subject areas that have certifying organizations, the problem exists, if for no other reason than most editors lack the certifications that are available.

Don’t misunderstand: neither certification nor lack of certification is proof of an editor’s competence or incompetence. They may be indicators in some cases, but they do not rise to the level of proof.

The problem is that there is nothing that I know of that rises to the level of proof certitude. Editing is still an artisan’s career, which means that the same manuscript will be handled differently by equally competent and professional editors. Too much in editing is other than cast-iron rule for it to be otherwise (e.g., Is since synonymous in all instances with because? Should a serial comma be used even though the style is no serial commas?).

Another unsolvable problem regarding competency is subject matter competency. An editor may be an outstanding editor for historical romance novels yet abysmal as an editor of medical texts.

What it boils down to is that finding the right editor for a particular job is a difficult task that is not made any easier by the ease of entry into the profession.

In my early years, I assumed that an editor who was experienced in the areas in which I worked had to be competent. So if someone’s resume indicated that she had 3 years of medical editing experience, I assumed she must be competent. It took a while for me to grasp that in some cases, there was little correlation between competence and years of experience except, perhaps in the case of many years of experience, which tended to correlate very well.

Alas, even with a strong correlation between subject matter competence and years of experience, there was no assurance that the person would be a competent editor for the particular job(s). Editing is much more than knowing subject matter; editing is also much more than having edited a certain number of manuscripts.

I suppose we can say there are at least three levels of editing competency: no competency, mechanical editing competency, and inspired editing competency. The first, no competency, needs no discussion. It is represented by the person who hangs out a shingle, calls himself a professional editor, gets hired, and not only enrages the client with the poor work but gets the client to rant about editor incompetency to anyone who will listen.

Mechanical editing competency is probably where most editors fall on the editing continuum. They know grammar and the rules, know how to make sure that lists are parallel, tenses aren’t shifting every which way, and can quote the style manual rule that supports whatever editing decision they have made. They are good editors but uninspired.

Inspired editing competency is a label that, I think, can be given to a much smaller number of editors. These editors not only know the rules but know when to ignore them. (Imagine the difference between the editor who insisted on “to go boldly” versus the editor who understood “to boldly go.”) The inspired editor does not rewrite and reframe an author’s manuscript simply because he can; rather, he knows when it is necessary to rewrite for clear communication and when it is necessary to ignore the rules that have governed language for decades, if not for centuries, and leave the manuscript alone. The inspired editor understands the importance of language choices and understands when since is synonymous with because and when it should not be considered synonymous.

This is the problem of subcontracting. Which editor do you seek: the mechanically competent editor or the inspired editor? And how do you find them?

In part, the answer lies in what service you are providing and to whom you are providing it. Someone who works directly with authors on their novels and offers developmental-type services may want the inspired editor; in contrast, the editor who works with packagers whose budgets are small and tight, whose schedules are tight, and whose instructions from their clients are focused on the rules may want the mechanically competent editor.

In part the answer lies in what type of business you are trying to grow. You may already have a sufficient number of one type of editor and want the other type so as to be able to expand your business. In addition, you may be constrained by the type of clients you serve and the pay you can offer, which may dictate the type of editor you seek.

Knowing the type you seek allows you to configure your search methods to meet those needs. The one thing I have determined to be an absolute necessity (unless I know the editor and the editor’s work exceedingly well) is an editing test.

For many years I hired based solely on resume and an “interview.” What I found was that doing so was a crapshoot. Sometimes I struck gold, but most times I struck out. A test should be used to weed out, but not as the sole decision maker. I have found that since I instituted a test, 95% of applicants fade away. They do not return the test at all and so they make the decision for me. Of the 5% who take the test, fewer than 1 in 50 pass it. “Failing” my test does not mean the editor is not a good editor; it means that they will not fit my needs.

Even the editor who “passes” my test, should they be hired, needs some guidance from me, but the goal is to for them to be assigned a project and to run with it without supervision and with my having the confidence to know that I can take their editing and submit it to the client and not worry about a negative reaction.

There is no sure-bet method for finding an editor who fits when looking for subcontractors. There are steps one can take, but nothing is guaranteed — which is why when a good fit is found, it is worth working hard to maintain the relationship. Finding the editor is the hardest part of subcontracting, but it is not an impossible part. It just requires a bit more upfront work, but it can be well worthwhile.

Richard Adin, An American Editor

September 5, 2011

Living in a Dream World: The Professional Editor’s Fee

I’m wondering if there is a psychedelic resurgence going on. No, I’m not planning on taking another trip back to the 1960s and their various hallucinogenic crazes. There really is no need to resurrect the past. To relive the psychedelic past, all I need do is review the applications for employment I have been receiving in the past few months.

I admit that there are few jobs that are as glamorous, legendary, and desirable as that of a freelance editor. Perhaps the life of a Hollywood superstar comes close, but I suspect that even that life pales in comparison to the life that wannabe editors believe freelance editors live.

I can sense your confusion. You are wondering what I’m talking about, so let me lay it out clearly and concisely: Of the two dozen most recent job applications I have received, 21 (87.5%) have stated that the minimum acceptable pay for copyediting is $25 per page. (Applicants are required to tell me their minimum acceptable pay level because I don’t want to waste my time — or their time — knowing that we shall never meet on common ground when it comes to pay.) Somewhere someone must be paying these rates, because too many applicants are setting them as the floor. I’m just wondering who is paying these rates; I’d like to apply to work with them.

In addition to the pay limitations, 17 (70.8%) have written to tell me that they see no need to complete a copyediting test. All I need do is look at their resume, especially their education, because it amply demonstrates their qualifications. That not one of the submitted resumes conforms to the explicit instructions regarding how the resume is to be presented seems not to matter. Nor, apparently, does it matter that it is made clear that without the completed copyediting test, the job application will not be considered at all.

I wish I could say that it gets better, but it doesn’t. Of those who actually do attempt the copyediting test, many, when returning the test, include a note saying that although they completed the test, they have neither medical editing experience nor any interest in pursuing medical editing, which is 90% of what I do and which I make clear in my hiring information. They assume that I would be able to keep them supplied with work in their preferred subject area, which they occasionally name.

Then comes the copyediting test itself. It isn’t that hard, the instructions are pretty clear, and a sample of the coding is provided — yet, barely 1% of the test-takers do a decent job of editing, or even code properly.

But none of this matters much when it comes to the expected pay. Occasionally I will choose one applicant who completes the test but didn’t pass it (and didn’t submit a resume in the correct form) and ask if they would be interested in working for me at $x per page. I make it clear that there are certain resources that they would need to purchase if they didn’t already own them (which I know, based on the test). The contacted applicant is never interested; the applicant makes it clear that $25 per page is the minimum acceptable fee and that they aren’t budging.

What does this tell us about how people view the editorial world? It tells me that people have an unrealistic sense of it, that they have done no investigation, that they see being a freelance editor as the golden path to fame and fortune — a profession with low entry requirements but high, immediate rewards. (It is worth noting that some of these applicants actually have full-time jobs in publishing, so you would think they would have a more realistic view.)

The problem with this mythical view is that, because so many people have it and believe it, it frightens away those who need our services. When I’ve asked indie authors why they aren’t hiring professional editors, in most cases the response is that the cost is too high. If I follow up by asking if they got price quotes from professional editors, the answer almost always is “no,” because they already “know” that professional editors are too expensive.

How do they know this? Somewhere, somehow, a misperception occurred. Equating the fees charged by all professional editors is as wrong as equating the cost of every painting with that of a Rembrandt. But then I look at the minimum fees job applicants demand compared to what the real-world editorial market actually pays and I wonder how that disconnect came about.

Combating this misperception is difficult, yet it is a task that editors need to undertake if we hope to survive as a profession the shift in the publishing industry from traditional publishing to self-publishing. What are your suggestions for combating this misperception that professional editors are too expensive?

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: