Bridging the Gap

As a technical writer, when you have approached for the services of a dedicated editorial department and have received the edited version of your document, you might be perturbed by the intensity of editing that has been done. This experience is normal or it might be possible if you have not worked with fervent editors or not yet acquainted with their editing approach. Nevertheless, whether you are a fresher or an experienced technical writer, the advises given here will aid you to take decisions to finalize your contents or write-ups for the final publication. These guidelines also help you to have good rapport and a long lasting prolific relationship with the associated editor:

• Train your mind to stay calm and poised when you see those extensive editorial markings. Never be defensive. For instance, if a comment or a markup disturbs you, refrain to retort straightaway. On the other hand, consider the matter with regard to the message it carries, and not the criticism. Later, accept the comments or the edits with stride or reject it with confidence based on information you have at hand.
• An editor reviews your work objectively. While reviewing the documents, editors engage themselves with a focused mind and help the writers to craft an improvised version. Have faith that there is no amount of any sort of bias. Therefore, writers should make the most of this fact by carefully considering any structural modifications, comments, or suggestions. Editors would let you know the flaws in your document in terms of organization or if there are any grave inconsistencies in technical information.  So, appreciate the impartiality and trust editors’ perspective because they read with audience in mind and respond to the information or the content.
• When you work with a substantive editor, there is every possibility that the editor would recommend that you do a significant rewriting and paraphrasing. Based on the experience of the editor, writers are suggested to add quality content depending on the references and style guides they use. Therefore, writers should be mentally prepared and willing to rewrite the document.
• Editors propose standard writing conventions and replacement (substitute) words. Sometimes, these are discretionary changes made because the editor considers that a better word usage or a rephrased sentence reads in a better way. In this case, writers can feel free to disregard the changes unless there are any suggestions to change unclear statements or grammatically incorrect sentences.  Having said that, if you as a writer, strongly believe in restricting a change, approach the editor about the logic for revising the content. If the editor justifies that the modification rectifies an error, record or save the comment for future so that you can avoid repeating such mistakes in your forthcoming updates or versions.  If a particular edit is optional, but strongly directed, use your judgment and take a call about accepting or rejecting it. Editors would summarize their edits to improve unclear or long-winded content, or generate a review tracker to comprehend what the writers are trying to communicate. By doing so, sometimes they may be unsure of the writers’ intent or may ask them to confirm that  after revision. Again, writers should use their discretion and must not fret. 

To sum up, writers should accept their shortcomings with grace. Editors would be more than happy to know that they encouraged writers to come up with something better.  Professional editors are unbiased and diplomatic, but at the same time should avoid making comments in an incorrect way. Sometimes, even editors misinterpret the content or inadvertently falter. If writers catch an editor’s erroneous edits, they should go ahead and inform the editor. Editors in turn should appreciate the approach and accept their shortcomings too. This piece of advice is for editors as well to take the feedback from writers constructively.