Surveying the editorial landscape
You know this already, even as novice writer or editor: some text needs only a minor bit of tweaking to ready it for publication; other text might need progressively more intervention before it goes before an audience. The categories of editorial intervention — from deeper to lighter, and the tasks involved — are known as the levels of edit.
The levels of edit provide a scaffolding on which to develop editing expertise, a framework within which to analyze, and so understand, the work that needs to be done. The levels of edit (and their associated checklists) help individual editors stay consistent in their work from one project to the next. They help editors working together within a given context to stay more consistent with one another. They provide a guideline for when to query or suggest, when to change — contingent also on the editing environment and the editor’s role in that environment. And they provide a means of communication between the editor and writer or other stakeholders on the project.
The levels of edit are the bedrock of professional editing.
Note
This discussion pertains to nonfiction of the sort that is not driven by narrative.
With narrative nonfiction or fiction, all the narrative elements of writing come instead into play. Developmental editing will be focused almost completely differently, line editing somewhat differently, and copyediting concerns remain about the same, though leeway is allowed authors for idiosyncrasies of style or punctuation, most particularly with respect to dialogue.
The general progression
Conceptions of how many “levels” of edit there are, and just what each comprises, differ across editing environments.
In general, the levels move from broader to successively finer concerns —
On up to the finer-grained, more superficial issues (hyphenation, spelling, surface-level grammar) often related to the look on the page . . .
To characteristics of the writing itself (tone, style, clarity, cohesion, coherence, parallelism, etc.) . . .
To issues of structure and organization (both inherent logic and as applicable to context and audience) . . .
The larger, foundational issues of the piece (concept, tone, purpose, audience, conceived content) . . .
The labels, the levels
Although this general progression from broad to fine is always in evidence, different organizations sometimes use different terms and somewhat different divisions. Look always for the description of the tasks encompassed by a particular type of editing, however labeled, to understand the nature of the work involved. You’ll want to make sure that everyone on the project has the same understanding of that level, those tasks.
By way of illustration, here are the divisions and labels assigned to the different levels by four professional editing organizations —
Editors Canada distinctions and definitions
Proofreading
Copyediting
Stylistic editing (noted: also known as line editing, which itself may also include copyediting)
Structural editing (noted: also known as substantive editing, manuscript editing, content editing, developmental editing)
Editorial Freelancers Association delineation (some definitions, not perfectly correlated)
Proofreading (though specifically called out as distinct from editing)
Basic copyediting
Heavy copyediting
Substantive or line editing (noted: substantive, line, and content editing often used interchangeably)
Developmental editing
Northwest Editors’ Guild distinctions and definitions
Proofreading
Copyediting
Substantive editing
Developmental editing
Bay Area Editors’ Forum distinctions and definitions
Proofreading
Light copyediting (noted: also known as baseline editing)
Medium copyediting (noted: also known as editorial proofreading)
Heavy copyediting (noted: also known as substantive editing)
Developmental editing
Editcetera distinctions and definitions
Proofreading
Editorial proofreading
Light copyediting
Medium copyediting
Substantive editing (said to be the same as heavy-level copyediting, said to include all light- and medium-level copyediting, said often to also be a part of developmental editing)
Developmental editing
In short, the labels are confusing.
Is anyone using the same labels?
The deepest level of editing is most often called out as developmental editing. And developmental editing is often described in terms of those largest issues, having to do with audience and purpose, with structure and organization. Big-picture items.
As the Editors Canada site notes, though, this level can also be called substantive editing, manuscript editing, or content editing. They themselves prefer the term structural editing.
It’s the next level up, where the editor now shifts focus to look more at the language itself, as language, where the terminology seems to be most consistently different. The survey of these sites would seem to suggest that it’s this level that is most often meant by the term substantive editing, when that term comes up. This level is more often called line editing or sometimes heavy copyediting.
This accords with my own experiences over decades of editing in various environments. Line editing and heavy copyediting are often used (in different environments) to indicate the same thing. Sometimes, it’s true, this level is instead called substantive editing — but that term is squishy, as what does “substantive” mean? Developmental editing is a clearer, more technical term, as is line editing or heavy copyediting. Where you encounter the term substantive editing, you might be talking with someone who’s thinking of developmental editing, who’s thinking of line editing, or — yes, I’ve seen this one too — someone who means it as an umbrella term for both developmental and line editing.
As for content editing, I’ve most often seen it used interchangeably with developmental editing, that is, not only language but those larger-scope, big-picture items. But it can also sometimes be used instead to mean line editing.
If you’re going by labels alone, the potential for confusion is great. The best way to remain clear of terminology entanglement is to think instead in terms of task. And to define (or seek a clear definition of) each level in your editing environment by the tasks involved.
Is there a pattern?
Most environments do seem to call the deepest, big-picture level developmental editing.
But note that, in this list at least, where this level is instead called structural editing (which, by my lights, addresses only part of what it means to “develop” a work), heavy or line or substantive editing is instead called, in counterpoint, stylistic editing.
There’s a kind of semantic sense in that pairing.
Copyediting (correctness, the mechanics) is almost always distinguished from a deeper level of language editing that a whole host of issues more foundational to the writing itself, though that deeper level takes various labels. And the concept of “copyediting” is often broken into three: light, medium, and heavy. Whether or not these exact labels are used.
An aside on proofreading
Note that the EFA specifically separates proofreading from editing. Although many editing organizations include proofreading in the list of services they provide, proofreading is a task distinct from editing. In terms of the levels, it is the lightest, the one most concerned with the visual characteristics of text on the page. Though as copyeditor you would typically (depending on the other issues in the text) also be addressing these more superficial characteristics, in a strictly last-step proofreading pass, the proofreader ought not to be editing. And the text at that point ought not to need further editing.
The editing pyramid
One of the best ways to envision the levels of edit is as a pyramid. This visual (updated in 2018) captures the way in which the tasks become progressively more narrowly focused as you move from developmental editing on up to (the nonediting task of) proofreading. And it also captures the way in which each level provides a foundation for the next. You can’t really address finer-scoped issues until you’ve properly addressed any issues that lie in the levels beneath. (Why worry about caps, for example, if the text itself should be rewritten? Why worry about rewriting text to be more cohesive, if the message itself is misconstrued?)
Wherever exactly you draw the divisions and whatever you label each level, the pyramid captures the general progression that always holds.
Note that this conception of the levels focuses on nonfiction of the sort that is not driven by narrative. Narrative nonfiction or fiction would also incorporate the various elements of narrative style, structure, and approach as they applied to the specific genre.
bird’s-eye view of the graduated editing tasks
For each level of edit, the full complement of tasks should be defined for the context in which you are working. This is what will help keep you consistent across different projects, and this is what will help keep a group of editors consistent with one another.
In general, though, you can think of the layering like this —
If you’re fixing errors of grammar (including syntax) and usage, that’s copyediting.
If you’re revising the writing to be not just more correct, but more effective, that’s line editing (aka heavy copyediting).
If you’re restructuring organization or flow, moving passages around, that’s developmental editing, which most ideally happens early in the project timeline.
And if you’re questioning the very conception of the project — audience, strategy, content, and so on as defined — that too is developmental editing. Typically the sort of developmental editing that takes place when the project is still being defined.
A rubric for the levels
In her text Technical Editing, Judith Tarutz outlines an informal approach to the levels of edit, one that directly correlates with “the difficulty of the task, the amount of time it takes to perform, and the requisite skill level.”
That approach —
What you see just by turning pages: the superficial look of the text
What you see by skimming: spelling, grammar, punctuation, errors
What you verify by skimming and comparing: internal consistency, cross-references
What you notice by reading: writing style, such as wording, transitions, usage
What you detect by analyzing: organizational flaws, missing information, redundancies, technical inconsistencies
What you find by testing and using: technical errors, usability issues
This is a great way to conceptualize the investigation of a piece of writing, whether or not it’s technical.
A simple set of checklists that illustrates scope
You’ll want to build out a detailed set of checklists for each level in your editing environment. Here is one simple set that helps define the scope of each level in a general way.
Considerations of time
Although it is best to work from the bottom up — ensuring first that foundational aspects are in place before working with finer elements — there is not always time in the schedule to do what needs to be done. When that happens, make sure to speak to someone early on and then, if there will definitely not be time to address those issues now, to record what it is the project needs that you will not be doing.
Even when you’ve been told ahead of time that there’s no room in the schedule for anything more than, for example, light copyediting, it’s a good idea to do some preliminary investigation of those deeper aspects. If there are problems and you bring them to light, you might find that the conception of what needs to be done will change and you’ll be given more time.
Alternatively, even when there is no time to be granted, by highlighting any deeper, more foundational issues, you can help set the groundwork for future revision.
The deeper the edit, the more interpretive
While no two editors edit exactly alike, two copyeditors with like training and skill will copyedit the same piece of writing more similarly than two developmental editors with like training and skill will apply their trade. When the foundational elements of a piece of writing are not yet quite right, there can be many ways of solving the issue, many possible paths to follow. By contrast, when the grammar of a sentence is off, there might be only one or two likely fixes. And within a given writing environment, if the mechanics (caps, hyphens, spelling, and so on) are wrong, generally only one correction to be made.
The higher up in the hierarchy of edit you travel, the narrower the problems, the tighter in alignment the various solutions. The deeper down you go, the more interpretive the work.
From a training session on the editing process, May 5, 2016 / Updated February 2020
Companion piece to “The editor’s role”