Training a new editor
A new editor learns the organisation’s standards through examples, guided practice and feedback, with increasing responsibility as accuracy and speed develop.
The training curriculum
At PPD in 2014, novice editors trained on clinical study reports, protocols and narratives, reviewing current documents in parallel with experienced editors. Before reviewing a document, they studied edited examples showing expected copyedits, comments to writers and checks for consistency of terminology and style. Self-guided modules on the standard operating procedures and working practices for clinical study reports and protocols were read before the corresponding assignment.
PPD trainees studied the AMA Manual of Style sections on punctuation, capitalisation, numbers and percentages, while learning other style topics during their work. An in-house guide covered matters the manual did not address, such as bullet punctuation and table formatting, and editors also used client style guides.
At the Texas Heart Institute in 2015, new editors spent a year on probation and were encouraged to review thoroughly the AMA Manual of Style and AMWA self-study modules on grammar, usage, punctuation and statistics.
In India in 2007, Editage trained editors with general biology or humanities backgrounds to edit medical manuscripts by non-native-English-speaking authors from Asia. Its training covered four areas: comprehension, advanced language, attention to detail and communication with authors. Supplementary learning included monthly paper reading, presentations on medicine and life sciences, and a “Word of the Fortnight” introducing medical terms and procedures. Editage reported client complaints below 1% across subjects with this approach.
Protecting meaning
Editage’s comprehension training aimed to prevent changes to meaning, content or impact. Trainees prepared a technical checklist of unfamiliar or edited scientific terms and expressions after consulting scientific search engines and databases, medical dictionaries, textbooks and style guides. This research focused on how a term was used, rather than its definition, to prevent incorrect changes to technical expressions that sounded awkward to a nonspecialist.
At the Texas Heart Institute, new editors learned to recognise changes that might alter meaning and to tell the author when an unclear original made such a change unavoidable.
Supervised practice and feedback
In PPD’s parallel reviews, the experienced editor met the deadline while the novice concentrated on accuracy rather than speed. The novice was not expected to meet the same deadline, but could often see suggested edits incorporated into a second draft sent to the client.
PPD did not discourage novices from making more comments than experienced editors, because the comments helped them learn the reviewer’s role.
Before completing a review, PPD trainees used a checklist to confirm that tasks such as checking headers and verifying hyperlinks had been completed. Experienced editors built confidence by acknowledging helpful corrections, gently explaining missed points and showing how to avoid them. Trainees learned where to find sources for checking data, but could choose whether to verify all data before reviewing the text or check both together section by section. They also learned to interpret comparison documents for a check-of-changes review and to search for changed terms to check consistency in the surrounding text throughout the document.
Editage required technical checklists and reviews for meaning changes before documents reached authors for editors with less than 6–8 months’ experience. Its quality checks gave errors-per-thousand-words scores in each of the four training areas, and the scores informed further training. At the Texas Heart Institute, senior editors reviewed new editors’ tracked changes and gave feedback during the probationary year.
Experienced colleagues can help new editors learn the organisation’s ways of working through feedback and by letting novices observe how they edit. Coaching requires a balance between fixing problems and teaching the new editor to fix them, and reviewing a colleague’s editing requires setting aside ego.
Readiness for independent work
At PPD, parallel reviews generally lasted 1–3 months, depending on the individual; readiness depended on producing a review comparable to the experienced editor’s within the available time. The first independent review was checked again by an experienced editor to confirm the process was followed and identify oversights that required further training. Acceptance of the review by the writer also marked the transition from partly training time to fully billable work.
At the Texas Heart Institute, new editors typically did not take on writing for at least a year.