CIEP Roundtable report: Future-proofing the editorial profession

The first CIEP Roundtable session considered the perception and reputation of the editorial profession, gaps in how the profession is perceived by the public and what editorial professionals want to be known for, and how practitioners can go about bridging those gaps.

Below you can read a summary of the discussion.

How is the editorial profession perceived by those outside of it?

Several participants noted that editorial professionals are still frequently viewed as ‘grammar police', pedants or prescriptivists, or people who simply correct mistakes or even take pleasure in spotting other people's mistakes.

Participants reflected on how this narrow perception overlooks the wider strategic, structural and interpersonal aspects of editorial work.

It was important, too, to reflect on how and why that perception has come about, especially if it's something we want to change. Participants agreed that much of the work that editorial professionals do is ‘invisible’ and goes unexplained, and yet this invisibility is itself one of the many success criteria of editorial work, because it’s the writer’s voice that needs to be preserved, and if editing and proofreading is done well, a reader should never know that it’s even taken place.

It is perhaps this invisibility that has led to an inaccurate and, at times, damaging reputation. If we cannot see something or understand how it works, we will naturally draw our own conclusions – perhaps based on the conclusions of others or one-off experiences of our words being edited from as far back as our experience in school. And over time, those conclusions become harder to dismantle.

Perhaps the first question we need to be asking ourselves is why this important work has become and remained invisible. Are we not doing enough to make it clear to authors and clients what the work involves because we feel that they won’t be interested or won’t understand? And if so, how can we start to explain the work to them in a way that’s both accessible and engaging?

Participants considered whether practitioners need to get better at explaining to existing and potential clients, and the wider public:

what the different types of editorial work are in their specialism
what the in-depth editorial process or workflow looks like
what the outcomes or benefits are for the client (e.g. saving time, ensuring their work’s ready for publication, getting through peer review, giving them confidence, being actively listened to, or working with someone who wants them to achieve their goals) so that they understand the value.

This information needs to be accessible and relevant, so that it’s of interest to people and makes them want to engage with it and realise why it’s important.

How would we like the profession to be perceived? What would we like it to be known for?

The discussion then turned to how editorial professionals would like the profession to be perceived, and participants repeatedly returned to the idea that editors provide value far beyond technical ‘correctness’, and agreed that it was this value that they’d like to be known for.

The principle of the editor as a trusted adviser resonated strongly throughout the conversation. Several participants compared editorial work to the consultancy or advisory professions, including accountancy and other professional services sectors.

Defining the specific value that editorial professionals bring to their clients – the special something that goes beyond the technical expertise – was harder to pinpoint conclusively because it differs depending on the client and the project.

However, the following qualities were identified as central to successful editorial work, even though these qualities are often less visible than technical ability:

creativity (e.g. being able to not just identify a problem, but also suggest a nuanced solution that helps clients communicate their message)
a high degree of professionalism (e.g. querying in a way that treats clients with dignity and respect)
sensitivity (e.g. applying judgement that considers the client’s goals, the subject matter and the audience)
an ability to help clients communicate their message (e.g. so that they achieve a particular set of goals)
protecting clients from reputational damage (especially when it comes to inaccuracies or misinformation perpetuated by artificial intelligence (AI))
emotionally intelligent communication skills (e.g. being aware of the pressure on the client, or their particular needs).

If there’s a gap between public perception and desired perception, what's causing it?

The conversation turned to the language the profession uses to describe and define its work. As language professionals, we understand the impact that words can have, and participants considered whether it’s time to rethink the words we use to describe what we do.

Terms like ‘rule’, ‘correction’, ‘fixing’, ‘mistake’ and ‘error’ can sound rigid, prescriptive and punitive, and unintentionally creates barriers at best, fear and lack of confidence at worst. Using more welcoming terms such as ‘convention’, ‘suggested alternative’ or ‘recommendation’ can be more effective and represent the profession as adaptable, open and forward-thinking.

There was recognition that editors often work with nuance and judgement rather than absolute correctness, but that this complexity is not always communicated effectively outside the profession.

‘Our clients understand what we do in different ways, and that's not changed over a long time, so I think we need to change our message.’

The discussion also touched on rates of pay and how pricing relates to perceptions of professional value.

A range of views were expressed, including that:

editorial services are sometimes undervalued compared with other professional services
some clients might perceive writing and editorial work as a luxury rather than a necessity, and this may affect their willingness to go beyond a particular budget
low rates can reinforce the idea that editorial work isn’t highly skilled
different clients will always have different budgets, depending on multiple factors, and some clients – like packagers – might simply not be able to afford paying higher rates without making staff redundant
there can be a tension between editors’ and proofreaders’ perceptions of what a ‘realistic’ rate is and what would qualify as truly professional remuneration. Experiences are wide ranging and depend on the client type, the sector and the individual practitioner’s business model
improving public understanding of editorial value might lead to better perceptions about our professional status, and therefore pay
there are clients who will pay rates that reflect our value, but individual editorial practitioners also have to take responsibility for making themselves (and their offering) visible to those clients and showing rather than telling why they deserve to be paid that rate.

Participants suggested that improving public understanding of editorial value may also contribute to stronger perceptions of the profession’s professional status.

What skills are becoming increasingly valued or expected by clients?

The participants considered which skills – beyond the traditional editorial competencies – are valued by clients.

There was agreement among all participants that it’s interpersonal skills that are increasingly valued.

While clients continue to value things like accuracy; attention to detail; the ability to work to a brief; clear and coherent communication; respect for deadlines; and other service-specific activities that editorial professionals bring to a project, they also want to work with someone who:

demonstrates that they’re actively listening and understanding their needs
shares a genuine interest in their work
considers themselves part of the client’s team
cares about them succeeding and achieving their goals
will make themselves available for a conversation about their project.

In particular, clients who are embarking on a publishing journey for the first time don’t always understand the process. The more chance we give them to talk and share information with us – in a way they’re comfortable with rather than one that depends on knowing editorial jargon – the more we can give back to them to make that journey smoother.

‘People really appreciate that connection, and knowing that you've made that connection with their book, and that you’re making it with them.’

Adaptability and flexibility were also highlighted as important skills, particularly since the editorial profession, and the wider publishing industry, is evolving quickly.

Clients need to know that the editor or proofreader they’re working with is able to best advise them based on that evolution – whether it’s about advances in technology, publishing trends or editorial workflows.

‘You can't just sit back on your laurels and carry on doing what you're doing as you've always done it.’

‘Lots of my clients are first-time authors, and they don't know the process, so the more chance you give them to talk, the more you can give back to them, and the more you can ease them through it.’

What does future-proofing look like in this context?

Throughout the conversation there were, not surprisingly, many references to the threat of AI on the editorial profession and editorial standards.

Participants agreed that our strongest weapon against the threat is to leverage those skills that clients are increasingly valuing that only human editorial professionals can provide – creativity, understanding of nuance, emotional intelligence, a friendly face and voice who genuinely cares and takes an interest in their clients’ work and words.

At the same time, while it’s important that we continue to articulate the value of human editors over AI, like all professions, we can’t ignore the issue. We need to commit to time spent on understanding what the technology does and how it works.

‘Sensible editors are the ones that are going to understand it as a tool, and not bury their heads in the sand.’

More practically, participants agreed that the editorial profession must learn how to articulate what it is they do and the value they add in a way that’s accessible and will resonate with potential clients and the wider public. Because until people can understand the value they gain from a real human editor, why would they not choose the ‘easy’ route?

Conclusion

The Roundtable generated a thoughtful and wide-ranging discussion about the evolving role of editors and the challenges of communicating editorial value.

While participants came from different backgrounds and specialisms, there was broad agreement that editorial work extends far beyond ‘correcting’ grammar or enforcing ‘rules’. Editors contribute strategic thinking, audience awareness, communication expertise and collaborative problem-solving that often remain invisible to clients and readers.

The session also highlighted opportunities for the profession to become more visible, approachable and proactive in explaining its role to wider audiences.

Overall, the discussion reinforced the importance of continuing conversations about how editors position themselves, communicate their expertise and adapt to changing expectations within publishing and professional communication.

Return to listing