Lessons I've learned in nearly 30 years of editing

Every year, I review my website to make sure it's up to date and still reflects the work I do. This year, while doing that, I realised that I'm not far off 30 years since my first job in proofreading.

I began that job in 1997, working as part of a graphic-design team on technical documents. At the time, proofreading was only a small part of my role as a layout artist, and I didn't fully appreciate how important it was. Even when I went on to set up a freelance business focusing on proofreading and copyediting, my understanding of editing was still relatively narrow. I knew it meant improving grammar, correcting errors and making text clearer. What I didn’t yet appreciate was how much of editing is about interpretation and judgement.

Over the years, my work focused on medical education, public health and, eventually, medical and medico-legal editing. That transition, particularly the move from general publishing into medical editing, changed how I understood the profession.

Looking back over nearly three decades, here are some of the lessons that have stayed with me.

Editing is fundamentally about responsibility to the reader

Early in my career, I saw editing primarily as a technical task. With experience, I came to understand that its real purpose is to is to help ensure that readers interpret the text in the way the author intended.

Readers approach a document without the author’s background knowledge. They rely entirely on what is on the page. If something is ambiguous, inconsistent or unclear, they cannot resolve it through assumption.

This is especially important in medical and medico-legal writing, where interpretation matters. Editing is not simply about improving how text reads – it is about ensuring that meaning is communicated accurately and responsibly.

My transition into medical editing changed my perspective completely

When I began specialising in medical editing in 2009, I quickly realised that it required a shift in how I approached editing.

The principles of clarity and consistency apply across all forms of editing, but in medical writing they often take on particular significance because of the precision required and the way the information may be used. Small differences in wording can affect how information is interpreted and, especially in medico-legal contexts, how events are understood retrospectively.

I also became more aware of the importance of restraint. In specialist writing, editorial changes must be made carefully. It is not enough to make text read more smoothly – changes must preserve the author’s intended meaning and professional intent.

This shift required a deeper level of attention, not just to language, but to context.

Experience teaches you to recognise ambiguity quickly

One of the most valuable skills I’ve developed over time is the ability to identify ambiguity. In editing, ambiguity refers to language that can be interpretated in more than one way.

And it's not always obvious. A sentence, term or abbreviation may appear clear at first, but on second reading you realise it could be interpreted differently. For example, the sentence 'Patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity were enrolled in the study' is grammatically correct and correctly spelled. But is it unambiguous? Not quite. We don't know if it means patients with both conditions, or those with either condition.

These are the kinds of issues that readers notice, even if they cannot immediately articulate why something feels unclear.

Consistency is one of the foundations of credibility

Readers expect documents to behave predictably. When terminology, structure or tone shifts without explanation, it can create confusion and distraction.

Over time, I’ve learned that consistency is not just an aesthetic concern. It supports comprehension and reinforces trust in the document.

This is particularly important in long or complex reports, where readers need to navigate information efficiently and confidently.

Editing is as much about knowing when not to intervene

This was not something I fully understood early in my career.

It is easy to assume that editing means making visible changes. But unnecessary intervention can introduce risk, especially in specialist material.

With experience comes a greater appreciation for restraint. Not every sentence needs to be improved. Not every stylistic variation needs to be standardised. Sometimes the most responsible editorial decision is to leave the text unchanged.

Editing is not about imposing a personal voice. It is about supporting the author’s.

The tools have changed – the principles have not

When I started first started as a freelance copyeditor and proofreader, it was all done on paper. Publishers would send me printed book manuscripts through the post. I would mark up my changes by hand using traditional proofreading symbols, carefully reviewing every line, and then send the edited manuscript back by post – and hope it arrived safely!

Since then, editing has largely moved from handwritten mark-ups to fully digital workflows. Each shift has changed how editing is done, but not why it is done.

Today, track changes and online collaboration have made editing more efficient and transparent. Digital tools can help identify surface-level issues and support early drafting. But they do not replace editorial judgement. They cannot reliably assess nuance, intent or audience.

The core principles of editing remain the same: clarity, consistency and accuracy.

Editing is collaborative, even when it appears solitary

Editing often takes place behind the scenes, but it is fundamentally collaborative.

The goal is not to take ownership of the text, but to help the author communicate more effectively. This requires understanding the purpose of the document, respecting the author’s expertise and recognising the needs of the reader.

At its best, editing strengthens the connection between author and reader without drawing attention to itself.

Final thoughts

When I began proofreading in 1997, and later copyediting, I saw editing primarily as a technical skill. Over time, I’ve come to see it as more than a technical skill, and more about knowing what to change, what to leave and why.

The tools have evolved from paper manuscripts sent through the post to digital documents shared instantly. But the core purpose of editing has not changed. Editing exists to ensure that writing communicates clearly, accurately and appropriately to its intended audience. That principle has shaped my work from the beginning and remains central to how I approach editing today.

---

A note on terminology: The terms medical copyeditor, medical proofreader and medical editor are often confused and used interchangeably. To add to the confusion, there are yet other terms used for different niches such as plain-English editor, medico-legal copyeditor and editorial assistant (the latter is commonly used in medical communications). I personally use medical editor to describe my role, and medical editing to describe both medical copyediting and medical proofreading, as this suggests a hybrid approach as per my own clients' preferences ... plus, it's simpler! See here for more detail on the traditional differences between proofreading and copyediting.