We’re being asked more and more often to edit and proofread copy and proofs directly on collaborative platforms – from Google Docs and Microsoft Teams to Adobe Online, Wrike and other project and content management systems.
And it makes sense. Collaborative software has made it much easier for writers, designers, reviewers, editors and other stakeholders to work together on big comms projects.
But there are a few pitfalls.
As with any editorial project, this type of collaboration works best when the brief is clear and everyone understands what is happening at each stage.
Before you start, it’s worth asking some key questions.
Why are you using this platform, and what part of the process will happen there?
How many people will be reviewing the content?
Will different review stages overlap?
Is there somewhere outside the document or proof for bigger project discussions?
Does everyone understand what they’re responsible for at each stage?
And, crucially, does everyone know how to use the platform?
That last one matters more than you might think.
Know what the platform can (and can’t) do
Different platforms have different strengths.
The way changes, comments and annotations work can vary considerably. So can what happens when copy moves from one platform to another (e.g. when you shift from drafting to editing and then into typesetting).
Before the work starts, check that the platform supports the editorial process you’re planning.
Can comments and mark-up be carried across to other parts of the process without anything getting lost?
Can your copyeditor format documents ready for typesetting/design/html?
Can reviewers clearly see the difference between a suggested change, a query and an agreed amendment?
It’s also worth checking that everyone involved understands how the relevant functions should be used… otherwise, one person may be making direct changes while another adds comments.
Keep one master version
Even when everyone is working collaboratively, version control is still important.
There should only ever be one master version in use at any one time, with comments and finalised changes incorporated into that version.
This becomes particularly important on larger projects where copy may be moving between different teams, platforms or formats.
There’s also a greater chance of conflicting feedback when several reviewers are working at once. Two people can make perfectly reasonable suggestions that go in very different directions.
Who has the final say? And does everyone involved know?
If you can, phasing the review can be beneficial. Let internal reviewers finish their comments first, incorporate those changes and then give the copyeditor or proofreader that version.
Sometimes stages have to overlap (we all know deadlines don’t always behave themselves…) but it needs to be managed carefully.
Keep an audit trail
A clear audit trail is an important part of any copyediting or proofreading project.
You need to be able to look back and see what was suggested, what was changed and why a decision was made.
Track changes, comments, annotations or creating a matrix/list of changes can all help with this. Which you use will depend on the platform and the project.
A professional copyeditor or proofreader will always keep an audit trail of their own work for reference.
It’s a good idea for the wider project team to do the same.
Most collaborative platforms let you look back through previous versions, but it’s much easier if queries and corrections are recorded as you go.
Use access controls
Just because everyone can have editing access doesn’t mean everyone needs it all the time.
Permissions can be really useful for managing the process efficiently – and for maintaining both version control and an audit trail.
You might ask some reviewers to suggest changes rather than make direct edits. At some stages, it may make sense to restrict access temporarily or limit editing to one or two people to avoid confusion.
This is especially useful during the proofreading phase when copy should be finalised as far as internal reviewers are concerned. If the copy is still changing around then, it becomes a lot harder to know exactly what has (and hasn’t) been checked.
Make sure everyone understands each stage
This is one of the simplest things to get right, but one of the easiest to overlook.
Different stages of an editorial project have different purposes.
Drafting: writers and reviewers are still creating the content so substantial changes are expected.
Editing: the bigger picture is still being worked on, so you can expect high-level edits around structure, content, meaning and how the document works as a whole.
Copyediting: by this point, the content should largely be settled. Internal reviewers stop making changes while the copyeditor works through the agreed version in detail. Once that is complete, a lead reviewer can respond to queries and approve changes.
Proofreading: the content should now be very close to the finished version. Only essential internal changes should be made and where possible, funnelled through a lead reviewer so the proofreader can see exactly what has changed and knows what to check to get the document ready for publication.
Collaborative platforms can make big editorial projects much easier to manage… but they don’t remove the need for a clear process behind them.
Everyone still needs to know which version they’re working on, what they’re reviewing and who is making the final call.
Get that right, and sharing really can make the whole process easier!
