Phase III: Editing
Summary
Be sure to read the pages on editing advice, how to use Google Docs, how to update the master spreadsheet and the editor checklist before you start the editing process.
When first drafts are received, the editor-at-large (EAL) or the ME will also review with each editor pair to discuss shape of the piece and how to approach edits.
Authors are responsible for turning around drafts in a timely manner. Typically, the time between drafts is around two weeks on the authors end, although as the process goes on and edits become more specific, this time window should shorten. However, the shorter the better - feel free to give your authors one week to ten days to turn around a first draft.
Editors should provide feedback within 72 hours (ideal) to a week (at absolute most). The lead editor is responsible for maintaining regular contact with the authors, but the actual editing is done collaboratively.
To keep the magazine on track, it's critical, when communicating with fellow editors, technical editors, copy editors, and authors is to always clearly state deadlines and stick to them. Do not assume your sense of urgency is shared by your collaborators, don't feel bad about nudging people, and be sure to keep your own deadlines to set a good example for the author.
Expect to review 3-4 drafts before sending the article to technical editing. Before each article goes into fact-checking, but when editors both feel it may be close to final, send a new document copy to the EAL assigned in the spreadsheet. They will review the article for overall flow, flag any problematic arguments, and suggest any areas to reorder, cut, or expand.
If at any point the authors are unresponsive or not receptive to feedback, or you have other conflicts/questions, contact the EAL and the ME immediately.
Total time: 2-3 months
Suggested deadline: Each draft should be turned around within two weeks maximum. One week is a solid deadline in most cases. If suggestions are minor, feel free to set shorter deadlines (one weekend, 5 days, etc).
Editor action items: Respond to drafts from your authors within 72 hours, update the spreadsheet status, keep authors on track for deadlines and word counts, communicate status regularly with the ME, collaborate with lead, co-editor and EAL.
Authors cannot make substantive (content, ordering, etc) changes after this stage. Make this clear to them.
What else you need to know:
Editing articles is where ECs spend most of their time and effort. Here are some tips and details about the process.
Communicating with authors:
Send reminders a day or two before deadlines to check in and anticipate delays if necessary.
Stay positive, and be forgiving if someone has a crisis, and never place blame (don't say, for instance, "the magazine won't go into production because you're late"), but make it clear that deadlines are not arbitrary.
That said, you are free to create arbitrary or early deadlines, since many people will fail to meet them anyway.
Always create a new Google doc when making edits to a new draft. This prevents the author from seeing your comments before you're ready to send them, and helps with version control. For more info, read the Google Doc help page.
Status updates:
Each time the lead editor receives or sends back a draft to the author, the lead updates the spreadsheet with Detailed Status, Stage (in edits, technical editing, etc), and updates deadlines if anything has shifted per conversation with the author.
If you have concerns about missed deadlines or your author or co-editor not being responsive, contact the Managing Editor (editors@scienceforthepeople.org) immediately.
Working with your co-editor:
The role of the lead editor only differs from that of the co-editor in that the lead is responsible for communicating with the authors directly and for regularly updating the master spreadsheet.
Otherwise, you are equal partners - respect what the other editor thinks, and never send conflicting feedback to the authors. If you have any trouble working with your co-editor, please contact the ME immediately.
EAL review:
EAL will review the article for overall flow, flag any problematic arguments, and suggest any areas to reorder, cut, or expand.
Do not send comments from the EAL directly. Their comments are directed to the editors and should remain private. Instead, frame the commentary in your own (lead editor) feedback to the author. The EAL will tell you if they think the article is ready for fact-checking or needs more work.
The EAL will review a second draft of the article and be in touch about establishing good editing practices and communication.
The EAL also reviews the article before it is sent to technical editing.
If significant comments, send back to the author before sending into proofreading.
If minor EAL comments, can wait to send those comments along with Technical Editing comments.
Communicating with TE and Copy/Proof:
Always email your assigned TE/Copy/Proofreader a week before you expect to send them a draft. This gives them time to plan, and also allows us to catch non-responsive TE/CP so that we can reassign them.
Technical Editing:
Typically, articles are ready to be sent to technical editing after their third to fifth draft. If the article needs small edits, but you are close to the deadline for delivery to TE, feel free to send the article to the technical editor -- just let them know that the piece may slightly change!
Last updated