Multistage Editing and Query Project

Project Overview

This document makes the project look and sound like a lot of work—and it is a lot of work. But at this point, there’s not too much NEW stuff that you’ve never done before. Light and heavy edits, queries, style sheets, you’ve done all this stuff before! Staying on top of the calendar is critical here, as everyone’s timelines depend on everyone else’s. When you get behind, you put someone else behind, and that’s not cool!

We will use the #peeve-editing channel in Slack heavily during this project. Don’t hesitate to reach out to your instructor and classmates in the process!

Goals

This project puts into action all of your practice in editing, evaluating, and thinking about relationships between authors, editors, texts, and readers:

• Perform different levels of editing, from developmental and comprehensive to copy
• Edit texts globally and locally with a rhetorical approach to usage, style, grammar, and mechanics as well as to visuals, graphics, and multimodal design
• Use the professional language and tools of editing
• Use effective strategies for remote collaborative work

Overall Instructions

Respond to classmates' "Editorial Pet Peeve" as an editor. I will assign editor/author groupings. (See online spreadsheet: Copyediting Assignments)

We’ll proceed in three rounds of editing, each of which will involve editors working on a manuscript and then communicating with the author about their edits. After each round of editing, authors will have time to revise according to queries and send the manuscript on for the next round

Each round is summarized in the following table. This document includes specific instructions for each round of edits for both authors and editors.

Deliverables and Milestones

Each round will involve different processes and deliverables. Because the project involves sharing documents through multiple stages, we will not use Blackboard to share and submit deliverables. I will set up Google Drive folders to use throughout these stages.

See Appendix B for a complete list of deliverables and their associated file names.

Special instructions on file naming conventions

File naming helps us keep track of which document you’re supposed to be looking at for a certain stage. A good file naming system is short, direct, and semantic—file names should tell you what you’re going to be opening.

For this class, I’ve established the following system. I expect you to try to follow it. See Appendix B for a complete list of deliverables and their associated file names.

• Use authorlastname (one word) in the filename. Do not include initials or extra letters. This practice will keep the right files together in groups.
• Use all lowercase letters, even in proper names. Though your PC might not care, letter case is important when working on web servers, which are usually case-sensitive. If you always use lowercase, you never have to guess.
• Use hyphens, not spaces or underscores. (Want to know where all those %20s come from in long URLs? That’s how a computer translates a space. Weird.
• Use a numbering system to serialize files, not “old” or “new” or “current.” This is a hard habit to break, by the way.

Round 1: Developmental Editing

Complete developmental editing (sometimes also called substantive editing) on your assigned Pet Peeve manuscript (ms). Check the editing matrix for assignments.

Round 1 editing is due Monday, April 1. Editors will have about 7 days for Round 1. This round is short to give authors maximum time to revise afterwards, but long enough that editors should be able to read the manuscript multiple times.

Instructions for Round 1 editors (Please read all instructions before starting!)

1. Check the editing matrix. Download and review the pet peeves essay (authorname.docx) you have been assigned for Round 1.
2. Save a new copy of the document as authorname-round1.docx if working in Word or authorname-round1 if working in Docs. Reformat as needed to prepare a copy-editing ready version of the ms. (Double-spacing, etc.)
3. Read the entire manuscript all the way through at least once without writing any queries or changes. Make notes to yourself in a separate document, which will eventually become your red flag query document (see template).
4. Perform a developmental edit using Microsoft Word (or Google Docs) Comment and Track changes functions (version tracking is automatic in Docs; you can also turn on “Suggesting” mode to insert changes without finalizing them). Suggest at least four substantial revisions as queries for the author: the kind that occur at a more intensive editing level. Note where and why the author should substantively change, move, expand, and delete a section (at least 1-2 sentences) of the text. Check their essay against the assignment description, and ensure it has all of the parts it should have; note what is missing in the red flag memo (see step 7) and author queries.
5. Complete a very light copyedit; don’t get lost in a medium or heavy line edit. Don’t suggest a lot of specific sentence changes that the author may eventually ditch because of other developmental edits. Ignore bibliographic and citation issues for now unless they are especially glaring.
6. Add a blank page to the beginning of the manuscript and write a summary or overview statement to the author (use paragraphs, lists, etcetera) about your edits and suggestions. Write to the author and inhabit those subversive virtues we’ve written so much about.
7. As you are working, create a “red flag” query document to share with editors assigned to the next stage of copy editing (see template). Include copies of your substantial queries and other issues or repeated problems you see in the document that may need to be dealt with in Round 2. Your audience for this document is other editors (in particular, the Round 2 copyeditor), so write it directed to that person (but knowing the author will probably peek, too). Don’t forget to use lists when necessary! Write down the style guide the author is using in this document.

Editors, when you're done with Round 1 editing:

1. Upload all of the following to the correct peeve-editing/authorname Google Drive folder no later than 11:59pm CST on Monday, April 1.
1. Commented ms with light copyedit and at least 4 developmental edit suggestions, offered as queries for the author (use filename authorname-round1.docx)
2. Red flag query memo to next round editors and instructor (use filename authorname-red-flag.docx)
2. Send a Slack message in the #peeve-editing channel, tagging both the author and the instructor, signaling that Round 1 editing is complete. Your Slack message should be something like “Round 1 on @authorname is complete and ready for revision.” Provide a share link to the Google Drive folder for the author’s materials.

Authors, when you get your manuscripts back after Round 1:

1. Revise! After revising, upload all of the following to the correct peeve-editing/authorname Google Drive folder. Submit your revised pet peeve essay for Round 2 editing by Friday, April 12.
1. Your revised ms saved in PDF format. (use filename authorname-round1-rev.pdf.)
2. A memo addressed to the Round 2 editor describing changes and responses to Round 1 edits. Keep this simple: describe what you did, what changes you made, what changes you didn’t want to make, and other questions or responses you might have for the editor. (use filename authorname-round1-response.docx)
2. Send a Slack message in the #peeve-editing channel, tagging the Round 2 editor and signaling that your manuscript is ready for Round 2 editing.

Round 2: Copy editing

Complete a medium-level copy edit with an eye towards a general audience. Use legible proofreaders’ marks and queries on hard copy and attach any additional comments for the author in a query letter. Check the editing matrix for assignments.

Round 2 begins April 12.

Round 2 editing is due Monday, April 22. Editors will have about 10 days for Round 2. This will be the longest round of editing, so you ought to have time to take multiple good passes.

Instructions for Round 2 editors (Please read all instructions before starting!)

1. Download and review the new version (authorname-round1-rev.pdf) of the pet peeves essay you have been assigned. Also download and review the red flag query memo. Check the editing matrix.
2. Save a new copy of the document as authorname-round2.pdf.
3. Read the entire manuscript all the way through at least once without writing any queries or changes.
4. Complete a medium-level copyedit using your CMOS copyeditor’s marks.
5. Do a careful check of the author’s citations and bibliography. Make sure you are checking against the right citation style!
6. Hard copy should be printed and marked with a pen or pencil and scanned or marked digitally with drawing tools that allow you to create copyeditor’s marks
7. As you edit, create a style sheet with editorial decisions for the essay. It will likely be very short. Use previous correspondence if needed (the red flag memo, queries in previous versions of the manuscript, and comments from the author).
8. Relying on previous correspondence (the red flag memo, queries in previous versions of the manuscript, and comments from the author), prepare a formal query letter to the author that asks for remaining information or queries to be resolved. I have provided a template for you to use in the peeve-editing folder. Your audience for this letter is the author, so write it directed to that person. Don’t forget to use lists when Spnecessary!

Editors, when you're done with Round 2 editing:

1. Upload all of the following to the correct peeve-editing/authorname Google Drive folder no later than 11:59pm CST on Monday, April 22.
1. Query letter to author (use filename authorname-round2-query.docx)
2. PDF of scanned, marked-up ms (use filename authorname-round2.pdf)
3. Style sheet for author and future editors to use (use filename authorname-round2-stylesheet.docx)
2. Send a Slack message in the #peeve-editing channel, tagging both the author and the instructor, signaling that Round 2 editing is complete. Your Slack message should be something like “Round 2 on @authorname is complete and ready for revision.” Provide a share link to the folder for the author’s materials.
3. Write 1-2 reflective paragraphs to the instructor, explaining guiding principles or difficulties you encountered. Send your reflection in a direct message to the instructor via Slack; a linked Google Drive or Dropbox file is fine.

Authors, when you get your manuscripts back after Round 2:

Author revises, responds, sends on for cleanup by Monday, April 29. Author will have ms about 7 days before sending to Round 3.

1. Review the editorial comments you received.
2. Before you make changes, write an initial reflection to share with your instructor: a paragraph or so noting your reactions to both the general experience of having the piece edited and/or to specific suggestions made by the editor, agreeable or less so. Send your reflection in a direct message to the instructor via Slack; a linked Google Drive or Dropbox file is fine.
3. Save a new copy of the document as authorname-round2-rev.docx if working in Word or authorname-round2-rev if working in Docs.
4. Revise your text in response to the editorial comments. There may not be time to turn it into a brand-new masterpiece, but you may make other authorial emendations beyond the editor’s suggestions if needed.
5. Write a short memo to the next editor that explains what you did and what they might need to attend to next. Respond briefly but generally to overall suggestions, note/explain any suggestions you didn’t accept, ask questions, and explain other changes you made.
6. After revising, upload all of the following to the correct peeve-editing/authorname Google Drive folder.
1. Memo to editor responding to queries (use filename authorname-round2-response.docx)
2. Revised manuscript as .docx (use filename authorname-round2-rev.docx)
7. Send a Slack message in the #peeve-editing channel, tagging the Round 3 editor and signaling that your manuscript is ready for Round 3 editing.

Round 3: Cleanup editing

The purpose of this stage is to put a fresh pair of eyes on the manuscript in a holistic fashion. Ideally this will be a “pens down” edit, focused on fixing things that snuck in with author revisions.

Only fix errors to ensure perfect copy. See what the author changed and if they accidentally added errors. No substantial edits!! Rely on the style sheet and queries from previous rounds to check work and make limited changes, if any.

Round 3 editing is due Friday, May 3. Editors will have about 5 days for Round 3.

Instructions for Round 3 editors (Please read all instructions before starting!)

1. Download and review the new version (authorname-round2-rev.docx) of the pet peeves essay you have been assigned. Also download and review the style sheet and other documents you might need.
2. Save a new copy of the document as authorname-round3.docx if working in Word or authorname-round3 if working in Docs.
3. Proofread the entire text. Assume the editors before you did their jobs and do no harm. If you find yourself making lots of corrections, double-check with the Round 2 editor to make sure you’re not undoing previous work. Do no harm.
4. But, we’re all learning, so somebody probably missed some stuff! This should be a very light copyedit; be sure to check all key copyediting issues, especially citations/bibliography. Look things up rather than assuming they’re correct because it’s on the page. Use Microsoft Word (or Google Docs) Comment and Track changes functions to record your edits and suggestions. No substantial or heavy edits at this time.

Editors, when you're done with Round 3 editing:

1. Upload all of the following to the correct peeve-editing/authorname Google Drive folder no later than 11:59pm CST on Friday, May 3.
1. Clean or lightly edited proof (use filename authorname-round3.docx).
2. Then send a Slack message in the #peeve-editing channel, tagging both the author and the instructor, signaling that Round 3 editing is complete. Your Slack message should be something like “Round 3 on @authorname is complete.” Provide a share link to the Google Drive folder for the author’s materials.

Authors, when you get your manuscripts back after Round 3:

Author reviews “proofs” before submitting to instructor on May 8. Author will have ms about 5 days before final submission.

Ideally you won’t have much to do at all here, but that will depend on your editorial team and what changes you introduced after Round 2.

1. Review what happened, accept changes, and finalize the manuscript in editable document format.
2. After you’re done with final revisions, upload your final manuscript in PDF format (authorsname-final.pdf) to your peeve-editing/authorname Google Drive folder.

Appendix A: Copyediting Assignments

Appendix B: List of Deliverables

Over the course of this project, you’ll create all of the following documents in Rounds 1-3 of editing. File naming is absolutely important to help us keep track of what document you’re supposed to be looking at for a certain stage. A good file naming system is short, direct, and semantic—file names should tell you what you’re going to be opening. For the purposes of this class, I’ve established the following system:

• authorlastname. Don’t include initials or extra letters; this will help files remain alphabetized correctly.
• Use all lowercase letters, even in proper names. Though your PC might not care, letter case is important when working on web servers, which are usually case-sensitive. If you always use lowercase, you never have to guess.
• Use hyphens, not spaces. (Want to know where all those %20s come from in long URLs? That’s how a computer translates a space. Weird.
• Use a number system to serialize files, not “old” or “new” or “current.” This is a hard habit to break, by the way.

The full list of files that will be in each authorsname Google Drive folder by the end of this project:

Appendix C: Levels of Copyediting

Source: Einsohn, Amy. (2006). “The Copyeditor’s Handbook” 2^nd ed. p.1