Proof Pros: tackling and avoiding extremely tight editorial schedules

The best editorial work is done when the editor or proofreader is able to budget an appropriate amount of time. But what happens when a schedule is squeezed to an extreme degree? Eight seasoned editorial professionals, from both fiction and non-fiction, explore how to give the client the best results in these circumstances - but also show what is lost when important tasks have to fall by the wayside.

I was a bit mean setting the Proof Pros this question on what is only their second outing (read their first here). Having only 50% of the usual editing time available is an extreme scenario.

But it does sometimes happen - in fact, I received a request of this nature as this article went to press. And it's important for both editors and clients to understand the implications of squeezing an editorial schedule to this degree, for two reasons. The first is so that a suitable plan and scope can be agreed. The second is to ensure there is a realistic expectation of the outcome - because the result will never be as good as when the proper amount of time is allowed.

Indeed, depending on the nature of the project, clients may find that their chosen editor or proofreader refuses to work on the project at all. Working in this way requires clear, open communication about what can and can't be achieved. It can also be stressful and ultimately unsatisfying for editors and proofreaders, who tend to value the feeling of a job well done. For both these reasons, many editorial professionals may only agree to work on such projects for existing clients and in special circumstances. Clients take note - some of the Proof Pros pick up this theme below with suggestions to avoid the scenario arising at all.

Thank you to the Proof Pros for graciously letting me push this scenario to its limits so we can investigate the possibilities. Who knows what we might learn that we can apply to other - less frantically pressured - projects?

Sally Asnicar: 'The client must accept errors could be missed'

Two words come to mind: prevention and compromise.

A project nears its conclusion. 'Oh, crap, we need to get it proofread!' A frantic email, text or call arrives. Unfortunately, the editors/proofreaders are treated as an afterthought.

The assumption is 'proofreading' means we're going to merely skim through looking for typos. But the document has been drafted by numerous people with different writing abilities, and hasn't been edited or had any styles applied. What it really needs is at least a copyedit.

Prevention

Prevention is better than cure: one way to avoid rush jobs is to help clients prevent them from occurring. Keep a detailed spreadsheet of periodical projects and send multiple reminders to clients beforehand to book in tentative dates. Nearer the time, lock in dates to avoid scheduling clashes.

Mitigation: educate clients to use a style sheet, share it with their team, and encourage them to set Word to the preferred version of English (if not US default), and run Word's spelling and grammar checks.

Compromise

Prevention/mitigation works well for repeat clients/projects, but what about an unscheduled rush project? Compromise! In the 'Fast-Cheap-Good' scenario, immediately disregard 'cheap'. If it necessitates working outside of business hours, the client must agree to pay extra before you begin.

Rush fees can be a deterrent for a client expecting you to drop everything to fit in unscheduled work. If they do this more than once, increase your rush rates, educate them to respect boundaries (did you put aside another project or work evenings to achieve the deadline?), and provide guidance on mitigation.

Before you agree to do the job, agree on priorities:

• Word count/format. The size and format of the document will determine whether the turnaround time is feasible. Working on a Word document using track changes is more efficient than making hundreds, even thousands, of markups and comments in a PDF.
• The audience takes precedence. Without the luxury of time, clearly conveyed information takes precedence over a typo-free, perfectly grammatical, spelled and punctuated report. One thorough copyedit can be more effective than one pass of proofreading (message vs. massage).

Faced with a harried client presenting a report they need published 'yesterday', things have to give. The client must accept errors could be missed - you're not accountable for a rush job that's not 100% perfect.

Katie Chambers: 'Other developmental issues would take a back seat'

All my services (copyediting, developmental, or my combined package) come with two passes in the first round, so I would only do one pass, then I would only include a half pass second round (editing any newly added or changed content between rounds).

With copyediting, I would prioritize grammar, spelling, and punctuation and wouldn't spend as much time on stylistic copyedits (word choice, sentence structure - line editing). Then I would run Grammarly, Word's grammar and spell check, and PerfectIt. Yes, Grammarly gets a lot wrong, but in the hands of someone who knows grammar and can go through its suggestions quickly, it can be a useful tool for catching missed errors.

With developmental editing nonfiction, I would focus on content (add or query content to ensure fully explained and supported ideas, and delete repetitive or off-topic material) and only consider organization (rearranging sentences, paragraphs, and chapters; adding in transitions; and adding in headings and subheadings) when the content in a given area is strong so I have the time to focus on that.

For fiction, I would do a quick read-through (something I normally don't do, as I dive right into the editing) so I have the full picture when I do my one editing pass. During that pass, I would focus on fixing plot holes, pacing issues, and inconsistent or weak characters and make suggestions to strengthen the conflict. Other developmental issues like timeline issues, setting and world-building, strengthening scenes (ensuring each scene has all the needed elements and is necessary and in the right place), and general craft style (showing and telling, head hopping, info dumping, controlling the narrative distance, action beats versus dialogue tags, free indirect speech, etc.) would take a back seat.

With my combined package, I would focus first on the developmental editing tasks mentioned as the top focus, then copyediting, then the rest of the developmental editing tasks, and stylistic copyedits (line editing) last. After which, I would run the tools mentioned.

The result would be a good-enough book: one that isn't riddled with errors and that makes sense.

Lisa de Caux: 'I aim to ensure the author has the tools they need'

This question is not so relevant for me these days as I mostly work with self-publishing authors who, though they might want their edit as quickly as possible, don't tend to have a date set in stone.

The question of turnaround time is a really important part of agreeing how we (the author and I) will work together. We typically agree the scope of the work weeks or months in advance. That's when I provide a formal quote, and if it's accepted, I book the time in my diary.

Agreeing the scope of the work includes the turnaround time the author would prefer. If they'd like a shorter turnaround time than I think the edit needs, my quote will include options.

The first option is typically the time I think is needed for the edit. Further options reduce the scope of the work, and therefore the amount of time needed. For instance, I might suggest excluding checking references if it's a non-fiction book. In this case, if needed, I'd provide guidance on how the author (or a colleague) could check them and make sure they're consistent. Or, if they want an edit for their novel, I offer a 10,000-word edit that they could use to guide their self-edit of the rest of the book. This takes significantly less time, while ensuring the author has the tools they need.

It depends. As always, the scope of the work varies from author to author, and so do the potential exclusions. I'm happy to be flexible!

Carla DeSantis: 'A lot is sacrificed when asking for a rush job'

This is a difficult question for me, because I have never been in the situation where I have not provided 100% service! I suppose if I had to allow only 50%, I would have to prioritize mechanics and consistency, as the baseline of correctness. I would run PerfectIt to check for inconsistencies in hyphenation, capitalization, use of italics and abbreviations, variations in spelling, and variations in the use of diacritics, if applicable. I would do a sweep for spelling errors. If it were a scholarly work, I would double check the existing citations and bibliography to make sure that they align with the format indicated by the prescribed style guide to be followed.

Here are just some things that might be lost if working at only 50% of my scholarly/academic editing service:

• I usually tweak awkward or unclear language (a level of line editing) as part of my full copyediting service.
• I leave queries if citations seem to be missing or are incomplete.
• I always check to make sure that what is listed in the works-cited list is actually cited in the text itself.
• I will adjust quotations from in-text to block quotes, and vice versa, if they are not styled properly according to the prescribed style guide.
• I am alert to internal coherence in argument and flag parts where it may be lacking.
• I make sure that links to sources in the bibliography/works-cited list actually lead to the sources cited.
• If something in the bibliography/works-cited list looks suspect to me, I will look up the source and double check the details for accuracy.
• If correlative conjunctions and antithetical elements (e.g. not only ... but also; not ... but; both ... and) have not been implemented correctly, I will fix them.

In short, a lot is sacrificed when asking for a rush job. It is always best to give yourself and your editor the time needed for 100% service and, thus, the best outcome.

Debbie Emmitt: 'I would see if I can move any other scheduled work around, so that I don't have to sacrifice quality to time'

My most popular service is a combo line and copyedit of a full-length manuscript, including a bespoke style sheet and editorial report of several pages. This service usually takes four to six weeks, depending on word count, complexity, and how 'clean' the manuscript is (how much intervention is required).

I usually work through a manuscript twice. The first pass takes around two-thirds of the allotted time, as most of my suggested changes and comments are noted during this stage. The second pass is to catch anything I may have missed during the first stage (there's always something!) and to tidy up my comments and remove queries that have been answered by the time I reached the end.

In this scenario, where the client can only allow time for 50% of my usual service, my first reaction would be to explain to the client the trade-off between time saved and the quality of the final manuscript. I would check they are certain they can't wait another couple of weeks.

If there is no wiggle room, I would consult my diary to see if I can move any other scheduled work around, so that I don't have to sacrifice quality to time. If this isn't possible, I would check the client is happy for me to work through the manuscript just once. This would save roughly 33% of the usual time spent. Producing the editorial report takes approximately 5% of the time, so if I don't create one, that would leave just 12% of time to save.

I tend to go over and above during a line edit when working for self-publishing authors. If I spot issues that would usually be picked up in a developmental edit, I point them out (e.g. structure, plot, character arcs). As this is an added bonus, in this time-saving scenario, I would strictly stick to a line and copyedit. This would make up the final 12% of time needing to be saved, and the client would receive their manuscript on time and edited as well as possible, given the parameters.

Amanda George: 'Knowing your client is key if you find yourself in this situation'

Working as an academic copy-editor, I know this scenario well. My clients have deadlines, and sometimes they push those deadlines. They are used to working under pressure, so over the years I have had to get used to tight turnarounds.

Knowing your client, and what they need, is key if you find yourself in this situation. For example, if you know they value precision and perfection, and their writing is generally strong, you can prioritise the proofreading. Perhaps they value your ability to untangle their language and give them a voice? In this case, you can focus on the copy-editing and sense-making and worry less about the finessing.

But what if you haven't worked with this client?

Last year I was asked by a PhD student (a referral) to help with last-minute checks on his thesis. He had 48 hours until submission. Luckily, he caught me at a time when I could give him all my attention. But his thesis was vast, so I had to be really disciplined about what I could and couldn't do (not to mention the ethical guidelines when working with students). No deep dives or falling down grammatical rabbit holes with this one. On our first Zoom meeting, I asked him what he needed most from me, and I let his checklist guide me. Consistency checks were top of the list, as well as some cross-checking and essential corrections. We touched base regularly, staying on track and between us ticking off all the items on his list. And he submitted - on time. It was real teamwork.

Interestingly, something he didn't ask for, but which I know he valued, was an ally. No one enjoys being under that much stress, so it was nice to provide some calm in the storm, as well as editorial support.

Bernadette Kearns: 'Often what a novel needs more than anything else is time'

I only edit full-length books so this situation rarely occurs because traditional publishers and the experienced indie authors I usually work with know how much time editing will take and plan accordingly.

But sometimes delays happen and hard decisions have to be made.

What I would recommend would depend on what stage of editing we're at. If the book needed a full structural edit and we were under time pressure, I would probably recommend an editorial report which answered very specific questions or had a tight focus on certain main structural issues occurring within the narrative only.

If we are at copyediting stage, then I would need to consider the individual needs of the manuscript, as well as the actual time restrictions and the author's proofreading plans. What does the manuscript need most? Does it flow well, but need heavy-duty proofing and consistency checks? Or is it sound in terms of spelling and grammar, but needs strenuous line editing to tackle issues around clarity and flow? At the end of the day, it is about trying to balance all these demands to achieve the best outcome. It may be possible to focus the scope of the edit on mechanical editing: checking spelling, grammar, punctuation and fixing only egregious errors or lack of clarity. Or it may be more beneficial to run quick checks for spelling and grammar and keep the main edit focus on line editing.

Personally, I believe that rushing publication of any document - and novels in particular - should be avoided. Often what a novel needs more than anything else is time: time to settle, time to reassess, time to realign, time to rewrite. So I always recommend to those authors who have the luxury of time to take advantage of that. Don't put yourself under pressure to publish immediately. Plan your publishing schedule carefully and factor in some time to simply let the story sit. Your book will be all the better for your giving it that space and time to allow your true author's vision for the book to develop.

Melanie Thompson: 'The client may not be the best person to judge what needs doing'

The standard copy-editor response to most questions is 'it depends', and that's more important than ever in this sort of situation. In particular, what can be achieved in half the usual time will depend heavily on how much you can 'trust' the client's analysis of what the job may entail.

I say 'trust' not to suggest that they are trying to pull the wool over the copy-editor's eyes regarding fees, but to remind readers of this article that the client may not be the best person to judge what needs doing: have they even had time to check it through before sending it to you? Is it their own work or someone else's? Who else may have been involved in the drafting process? Is a typesetter/designer involved, or will a PDF be made of the finished Word document?

For the sort of work I do, I would prioritise actually sitting down and reading the text - possibly on a printout, so it's quicker to make notes that may not be relevant further along the process. Such a read would focus on:

1. Factual accuracy - are numbers sensible in the context (e.g. misplaced decimal points); is there anything historically incongruous (e.g. something claimed as post-war definitely being pre-war)?
2. Legibility - checking for 'garden path' sentences that mislead the reader, or language that will be off-putting to non-specialists; if there are numbered paragraphs, are they sequential and internal references accurate?
3. Legal/suitability issues - copyright, plagiarism, inappropriate terminology.

While reading, I would note global corrections (e.g. use of capital letters for terms) or layout problems (wrong type of heading).

Then I would apply global changes (including using PerfectIt to correct style issues), add comments/queries to flag everything else that can't easily be solved and, if there was still time, correct the worst problems spotted under (1) and (2). Finally, I would run a spelling check (and a grammar check just in case new errors have crept in).

The Proof Pros are all independent contributors. Each person's words are their own and are not necessarily endorsed by the other contributors.