This Just Needs a Quick Proofread...

A proofread is rarely quick, but it will probably take less time than the copyedit.

After a manuscript has been thoroughly copyedited by one editor, an author may choose to hire a separate proofreader to read the manuscript one more time. Why? Wasn't everything caught by the copyeditor? If not, why did you pay for an edit??

The copyeditor no doubt mended many, many errors and added great value to the final product. But ultimately, all authors and editors and proofreaders are human, and errors will still slip by despite every effort. I have done plenty of proofreads where I caught large and small errors, and I'm sure proofreaders that follow me have caught things I missed. We all work together to make an author's manuscript the best it can be.

These are the top priorities of a proofread:

  • Mend egregious errors in spelling and punctuation: things that are really, truly wrong
  • Ensure adherence to house style and client's style preferences
  • Suggest minor changes to avoid repeated words or ideas 
  • Watch for errors that could take a reader out of the story or confuse them
  • Flag any remaining continuity errors
  • Hard copy laid-out pages: flag widows, orphans, stacks, other design and layout problems

Some clients have me work on the laid-out printed pages of a book (a true "proof" read) and mark changes directly on the pages using special proofreader's marks. Others provide an electronic Word document with the copyeditor's style sheet and ask me to read it one time through (as opposed to twice or three times during a copyedit), marking changes with Track Changes. I can also work with a PDF file format, but using Adobe's mark-up tools is a bit more time-consuming than Word's tools, so I prefer short documents in PDF.

Want to know more about different types of editing, including developmental editing? Please visit this helpful Northwest Editors Guild page.