Why subject-matter experts need editors

Subject-matter experts are indispensable in technical and medical fields. They generate knowledge, interpret data, design protocols and advance practice. When they write, they bring depth, accuracy and authority to the page.

Yet paradoxically, the deeper the expertise, the harder it becomes to edit one’s own writing.

This is not a contradiction. It is a cognitive reality.

Familiarity masks ambiguity

When you have worked in a field for years, key concepts feel obvious. Terminology becomes second nature. Logical steps feel implicit rather than stated. You know what each sentence is intended to mean.

But readers do not share your internal context.

A phrase that feels perfectly clear to the author may be open to multiple interpretations. A sentence may rely on unstated background knowledge. A paragraph may jump a step in reasoning that peers would fill in automatically, but others will not.

Because the author already understands the content, the brain fills in missing information while reading. The text appears clearer than it truly is.

This is why self-editing has natural limits. You are reading with prior knowledge that your reader does not have.

The brain reads meaning, not letters

Cognitive research shows that when we read, we prioritise meaning over detail. We predict what comes next based on context and expectation. This allows for fast, efficient reading – but it also means we often overlook small errors or unclear phrasing in our own work.

When reviewing familiar text, the brain sees what it expects to see. Typos disappear. Ambiguities smooth themselves out. Sentences feel logical because the underlying meaning already exists in the author’s mind.

The result is a document that feels clear to its writer, but less clear to its reader.

Expertise increases the risk of assumption

Specialists routinely make decisions using compressed mental models built through experience. This is a strength in practice, but in writing, it can lead to:

• unexplained acronyms or terms

• skipped reasoning steps

• dense sentence structures

• paragraphs that assume shared knowledge

None of this reflects poor writing skill. It reflects expert-level familiarity.

However, in medical and technical documents, even small misunderstandings can have serious consequences: misinterpretation of guidance, confusion over procedures, or misreading of data.

Clarity is not optional. It is part of accuracy.

What an editor adds

An editor brings one crucial element the author cannot provide: distance.

They approach the document without the internal scaffolding of the author’s knowledge. They encounter the text as a real reader would. This allows them to spot where:

• meaning is unclear

• structure hides key points

• terminology needs definition

• sentences carry unnecessary complexity

• the logic could be misread

A skilled editor does not change the underlying expertise. They make sure it is correctly conveyed.

This is not stylistic polishing. It is functional translation.

Plain-English editing is not simplification

A common misconception is that plain-English editing 'dumbs down' content. In technical fields, this concern is understandable – precision matters.

In reality, plain-English editing removes unnecessary complexity while preserving necessary complexity.

It asks:

• Does this sentence say exactly what it needs to say – no more, no less?

• Could a reader reasonably misinterpret this phrasing?

• Is technical terminology used where it adds precision, not where it adds opacity?

The goal is not to make content simplistic. The goal is to make meaning unmistakable.

Why external editing improves outcomes

When documents are used to inform clinical decisions, regulatory submissions, patient understanding, or operational procedures, clarity directly affects outcomes.

External editing helps ensure that:

• instructions are followed correctly

• evidence is interpreted accurately

• risks are understood appropriately

• time is not wasted seeking clarification

In this sense, editing is part of quality assurance.

Expertise creates knowledge → Editing makes that knowledge accessible → Accessibility makes knowledge usable.

The takeaway

If you are a subject-matter expert, difficulty editing your own writing is not a flaw. It is a predictable effect of how expertise and cognition interact.

Bringing in an editor is not an admission that your writing is weak. It is recognition that your knowledge deserves to be understood exactly as you intend it.

In technical and medical communication, that difference matters.

---

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 or 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.

---

To learn more about me and my background, please take a closer look here.