Proofreading

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the detection and correction of errors in written work. For proofreading in DNA replication, see Proofreading (biology).

Proofreading (also proof-reading) traditionally is the reading of a galley proof of text or art to detect and correct production errors. Computerization has required proofreaders to increasingly adopt skill-sets general to desktop publishing.

Proofreading in printing and publishing

A proof copy is a version of a manuscript that has been typeset after copy editing. Proof typescripts often contain typographical errors introduced by mistyping (hence the word typo to refer to misplaced, missing or incorrect characters). Traditionally, a proofreader checks the typeset copy and marks any errors using standard proofreaders' marks showing what is to be corrected (such as those specified in style manuals, by house style, or, more broadly, by the international standard ISO 5776, or, for English, the British Standard BS-5261:2). This process may be known as a line edit. The proof is then returned to the typesetter for correction. Correction-cycle proofs will typically have one descriptive term, such as bounce, bump, or revise unique to the department or organization and used for clarity to the strict exclusion of any other. It is a common practice for all such corrections, no matter how slight, to be returned after typesetting to a proofreader to be checked and initialed, thus establishing the principle of consistent accuracy for proofreaders. This principle defines proofreading in general.

The term proofreading is sometimes used incorrectly to refer to copy editing. This is a separate activity, although there is some overlap between the two. Proofreading consists of reviewing any text, either hard copy on paper or electronic copy on a computer, and checking for typos and formatting errors. This may be done either against an original document or "blind" (without checking against any other source). Many modern proofreaders are also required to take on some light copy-editing duties, such as checking for grammar and consistency issues.

Qualifications

The educational-level of proofreaders in general is on par with that of their coworkers. A perusal of online job-listings for proofreaders will show that although some specify a college degree, as many do not. A company seeking a single proofreader to fill a single position may be more likely to demand a degree as a way of reducing the candidate-pool, whereas a company employing teams of typesetters and proofreaders working around the clock would likely find the requirement irrelevant. Note that the former position is more likely to be a multitasking desktop-publishing one in a conventional office-setting, while the latter describes a more traditional single-purpose printing environment. Either way, proofreading is not usually considered a preferred or managerial-track position. In non-publishing environments it may even be rated by Human Resources as a clerical skill generic to literacy itself. Where this is the case, it isn't unusual for proofreaders to find themselves guaranteeing the accuracy of their higher-paid coworkers.

Methods of proofreading

There are principally three traditional ways to proofread. The first is described above. The second method is called copy holding or copy reading and employs two readers per proof. The first reads the text aloud literally as it appears, usually at a comparatively fast but uniform rate of speed. The second reader follows along and marks any pertinent differences between what is read and what was typeset. This method is appropriate for large quantities of boilerplate text where it is assumed that the number of errors will be comparatively small.

Experienced copy holders employ various codes and verbal short-cuts that accompany their reading. The spoken word digits for example means that the numbers about to be read aren't words spelled out; and in a hole can mean that the upcoming segment of text is within parenthesis. Bang means an exclamation point. A thump made with a finger on the table represents the initial cap, comma, period, or similar obvious attribute being read simultaneously. Thus the line of text (He said the address was 1234 Central Blvd., and to hurry!) would be read aloud as: in a hole [thump] he said the address was digits 1 2 3 4 [thump] central [thump] buluhvuhd [thump] comma and to hurry bang. Mutual understanding is the only guiding principal, so codes evolve as opportunity permits. In the above example, two thumps after buluhvuhd might be acceptable to proofreaders familiar with the text.

The third method is often termed double reading. A single proofreader checks a proof in the traditional manner, but then passes it on to a second reader who repeats the process. Both initial the proof. Since copy holding and double-reading are based on pairs of readers, responsibility is necessarily divided.

A fourth method, in which a proof is visually scanned but not read word for word, has become common with computerization of typesetting and the popularization of word processing. Many publishers have their own proprietary typesetting systems,¹ while their customers use commercial programs such as Word. Before the data in a Word file can be published, it must be converted into a format used by the publisher. The end product is usually called a conversion. If a customer has already proofread the contents of a file before submitting it to a publisher, there will be no reason for another proofreader to re-read it from copy (although this additional service may be requested and paid for). Instead, the publisher is held responsible only for formatting errors, such as typeface, page width, and alignment of columns in tables; and production errors such as text inadvertently deleted. To simplify matters further, a given conversion will usually be assigned a specific template. Given typesetters of sufficient skill, experienced proofreaders familiar with their typesetters' work can scan their pages with accuracy without reading the text for errors that neither they nor their typesetters are responsible for. Although scanning risks missing unique and unexpected errors, customers typically find the benefit of a fast turnaround for volume work to be an acceptable trade-off.

Problems with conversions

Visual scanning by proofreaders can lead to conflicts with management. This is because it will take a typesetter much longer to produce a conversion than it will take an experienced reader to accurately scan it. This can lead often to the proofreader having substantial amounts of downtime. Because proofreaders are usually hourly employees, the managerial tendency is to expect that readers should not have downtime. Towards that end, it may be expected that readers will scan to meet a deadline, but read word-for-word when that pressure is off. The problem with this approach is that the two different modes of work imply two different standards of quality. Also, proofreaders who scan are implicitly accepting responsibility for meeting deadlines, whereas word-for-word reading necessarily puts that burden on the scheduling-manager. In that latter case, the proofreaders are exercising what is essentially a clerical function. Scanning proofreaders, by contrast, are quasi-managers and as such will expect to be rewarded with some form of managerial leeway or compensation. Thus do conversions by their very nature put a premium on individual proofreaders' experience, skill, and commitment at the expense of managerial authority.

Proofreading training

Hands-on training for proofreaders has declined along with its status as a craft, although many commercial and college-level proofreading courses of varying quality can be found online. For purposes of employment, the hiring-test has replaced formal training. In addition to proofreading, such tests typically include spelling, vocabulary, and standard desktop-applications. As proofreading and copy-editing responsibilities tend to overlap, unless told otherwise applicants should at least query editorial errors.

Problems of proofreading

Due to the nature of their work, typesetters, word processors, and graphic artists are expected and permitted to make mistakes. As a practical matter they are also free to deliberately make a mistake at their own discretion to see if the proofreader catches it. While this is not typical behavior, it can and does occur. If the department is also supervised by one of those individuals -- as is often the case -- that power is magnified because the supervisor can both make mistakes while passing judgment on proofreaders who miss those mistakes. Proofreaders, even as they read from the same copy under the same deadline as their typesetters, are, like purely administrative managers, expected not to make mistakes and so are held fully accountable when they do. But proofreaders typically earn neither managerial pay nor are entitled to managerial latitude in doing their jobs -- they remain hourly employees both formally and in practice. This problem is complicated by the fact that errors caught and corrected, no matter how numerous, subtle, or surprising they may be, disappear from the feedback loop. No record is kept of them and they merit no formal recognition. Only missed errors register. Therefore only a lack of feedback meets daily baseline job-performance expectations. However, annual reviews are not structured to acknowledge the lack of daily feedback as an ongoing professional accomplishment. Also, proofreaders aren't productive in the traditional sense because they necessarily spend critical amounts of time looking for errors that, through no fault of their own, don't exist. Finally, proofreaders occupy the last stage of production prior to publication. This is the point where any earlier causes of deadline violations are necessarily less conspicuous.

When proofreaders aren't supervised by a co-working typesetter, word processor, or graphic artist, that role is usually filled by an office manager with a generic administrative background. Whoever the non-proofreading manager is, needs unique to proofreading rarely drive the department. Radios, headphone-leakage, office banter, repeated pages from overhead speakers -- all serve to distract and fatigue. Radios are a particular problem because they play commercials and commercials have numbers. Since proofreaders, being only human, can tune out noise only to a limited extent, they often end up reading one set of numbers while listening to another. But these matters aren't necessarily deemed worthy of serious concern because, by common consent, they never apply during skills-testing. Therefore they don't directly impact anyone but the proofreaders on an ongoing basis. Although business owners, higher management, and sales reps would likely consider such working conditions counterproductive were they to think seriously about them, ignorance of these conditions and apathy towards them, both the product of administrative barriers between departments and locales; and hostility towards proofreaders (fed by the bias of negative-only feedback) serve to perpetuate them.

In fiction

Examples of proofreaders in fiction include The History of the Siege of Lisbon (Historia do Cerco de Lisboa), a novel of 1989 by Nobel laureate Jose Saramago and the short story Proofs in George Steiner's Proofs and Three Parables (1992).

References

^ See 1983, http://www.bowne.com/about/timeline.asp

External links

Look up proofreading in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

GotLink.pl

[0] See 1983, http://www.bowne.com/about/timeline.asp

1

Proofreading

Proofreading

Contents

Proofreading in printing and publishing

Qualifications

Methods of proofreading

Problems with conversions

Proofreading training

Problems of proofreading

In fiction

See also

References

External links