This is substantive editing

Aerial view of winding road in high-altitude terrain

Puzzle with only a few pieces left to put in place

A high-octane drive on the substantive editing switchbacks – it’s fun. Checklist included!

This post focuses on substantive editing for non-fiction, though some of the principles described apply to fiction as well. Substantive editing’s counterpart for fiction is called developmental editing (or structural editing) – learn more about it here.

Substantive editing aims to ensure that any written content, in print or digital format, is inviting and engaging, and that all its parts contribute to a satisfying whole. Unlike copyediting, this type of editing is less about fixing things that are ‘wrong’ than it is about finding opportunities to improve and shape the material so it gets a green light on structure, substance and style (described below). It involves applying standards and conventions to various content types, but also requires the editor’s instinct and judgement.

Large or complex publications and knowledge products, such as books, reports and training guides, benefit most from substantive editing, but the process can help a writer organise information and ideas even in shorter texts and communications materials, such as journal articles, proposals and brochures. (All are referred to as a ‘document’ from here onward.) Inexperienced writers may find it of more value in getting their document on track than professional writers who know what’s expected of them and have a brief to follow.

Substantive editing should be done on a complete, but early, draft of a document. The stage of the project should be one where it’s not too late – in terms of schedule, budget and the writer’s resistance to change what’s already on the page – to accommodate significant reworking of the text, should that be needed.

During a substantive edit, the editor will investigate how well the document achieves its purpose and meets reader needs and expectations. The purpose of the document should have been explored by the writer or project team during its planning stage, and set down on paper in a proposal, a plan or an outline.

Three overarching questions guide the substantive editing process:

1. Is the structure of the document suitable for how it will be read or used?
A big picture look at structure determines how well the document is ordered and organised (e.g. into parts, chapters, sections and paragraphs), how easy navigation is (e.g. through use of cross-references, links and heading hierarchy) and how clear the presentation is (including lists, tables and graphics).

2. Does the substance of the document reflect its objectives and convey the writer’s message effectively?
A big picture look at substance (content of the document) includes an analysis of whether information is sufficiently detailed, appropriately focused and logically sequenced. It considers how much readers are likely to know when they start reading, and what they should know or what action they should take when they finish.

3. Is the style of the document appropriate for the intended audience?
A big picture look at style is about investigating writing style and language, including whether readers will understand the vocabulary and terminology used in the document. It also considers whether expression is clear and whether the voice and tone match the document type.

Substantive editing sometimes involves rewriting, for example to make complex subject matter accessible to a broader audience, to provide a single voice in a multi-author work, to shorten to length requirements (by eliminating repetition and redundancy, or by summarising and paraphrasing) or to untangle confusing or ambiguous passages of text. Editors approach rewriting with caution and care. They aim to make the words they introduce seamless with the style of the surrounding text.

Substantive editors often have a background in the subject areas in which they edit, which helps them detect problems in content that add great value to the edit. Note though that the writer, as the subject matter expert, always remains responsible for the accuracy of the content.

Editors work in different ways, but the outputs of a substantive edit are usually a combination of tracked changes in the manuscript marking simple fixes, comments in the margin proposing targeted improvements, and a report describing document-level problems that require major revision. Suggestions will be constructive but won’t always easily and neatly solve the issue: a significant amount of follow-up work may be needed by the writer.

While a comprehensive edit includes both substantive editing of an early draft and subsequent copyediting of the final draft, because of pressures on time and money, these two types of editing aren’t always done in sequence as separate stages of a project. They might overlap if only one round of editing is possible. In that case, the writer (or client, in the case of a publisher or an organisation) will need to advise where the editor’s focus should lie and indicate the extent of substantive changes they’re amenable to. The feedback of commissioning editors, agents, peer reviewers, beta readers and other publishing or communications professionals can provide the writer with a broad, reader-focused perspective of their document if a substantive edit isn’t possible, but such feedback won’t replace the focused, methodical check of an editor.

The following checklist is a guide to what substantive editing covers. If you’re a writer who’s taking a step back, mustering up some objectivity and launching into a substantive edit of your own work, it can be used as a practical tool.

Photo collage of lamp, notepaper, book, laptop, pot plant and spiral staircase

Substantive editing checklist

STRUCTURE

Organisation

• Does the overall structure correspond to the publication type?
• Is the order of parts, chapters and sections logical?
• Are distinctions between parts and chapters clear?
• Should an introduction or a conclusion be added if not present, or should text in other chapters be moved to one?
• Should a chapter be an appendix, or an appendix a chapter?
• Are footnotes (information of immediate relevance to the reader) and endnotes (less relevant information) used correctly and effectively?
• Are footnotes or endnotes overused, distracting readers?
• Is there an effective system for handling references (reference list, bibliography, further reading list, footnotes, endnotes)?
• Are there (or should there be) lists of illustrations, tables, boxes or abbreviations?
• Are appendixes (for material with references to the main document) and annexes (material that can stand apart from the body of the document) used correctly?

Navigation

• Is finding information in the document easy, particularly in the case of documents that aren’t intended to be read from start to finish?
• Is the table of contents sufficiently detailed and useful?
• Are readers given a narrative roadmap of the document through overviews?
• Do part overviews provide a high-level summary of the chapters and concepts within the part?
• Do chapter introductions summarise the sections and concepts within a chapter?
• Are readers given clear transitions and mini roadmaps at appropriate times?
• Does the heading hierarchy make sense?
• Are headings reflective of the content of the section or subsection they head?
• Do headings contain terms that are useful to the target audience?
• Do headings help signpost content and promote reader comprehension?
• Is the cross-referencing of information throughout the document sufficient and worthwhile?
• In the case of documents to be printed, is there (or will there be) a sufficiently detailed index?
• In the case of digital content, are links useful for guiding readers from one place to another?

Chapters

• Are chapters discrete and complete units, yet fit into the flow and balance of the document as a whole?
• Are chapter sizes roughly equal?
• Do chapter titles match what is described in the introduction?
• Is the order of standard/template chapter items consistent across chapters?
• Do previews, summaries, end-of-chapter key messages or questions, and other such devices reflect the content?

Sections and paragraphs

• Do sections have too broad a scope and therefore need to be broken into more sections?
• Should short or related sections be merged?
• Do sections need to be reordered (and renumbered)?
• Are the paragraphs after section headings introductory?
• Are paragraphs complete units of information that develop and support one idea?
• Do paragraphs have a topic sentence that serves as a focus for the ideas or information in the paragraph, usually but not necessarily at the start?
• Do the topic sentences of each paragraph follow in a logical order, or could paragraphs be moved around to connect ideas better?
• Are keywords and phrases repeated to establish a coherent transition between paragraphs?
• Are paragraphs roughly consistent in length (and are more on the short side than the long side)?
• Would paragraphs with a string of items of information work better as a displayed list?

Non-text elements

• Do non-text elements – tables, figures (e.g. graphs, charts, diagrams, drawings, photos, maps), boxes, equations and other such items that stand apart from the text – work with one another, as well as the text, to form an integrated whole?
• Does the placement of non-text elements work well for the reader?
• Are tables used to present data in a compact form, with salient features of the data interpreted for readers in the text?
• Do tables have a simple and logical layout?
• Is table layout consistent throughout the document (as far as possible given the different data they contain)?
• In cases of unavoidable presentation of data (or textual information) in both tables (or figures) and the text, do they correspond?
• Are similar data presented similarly?
• Are figures used to provide a visual, more easily understood, representation of data or to enhance or clarify textual information?
• Are the style and technical quality of the figures appropriate for the publication?
• For digital content, is alt text describing the content of figures included?
• Are captions for tables, figures and any other non-text elements relevant, anchoring the element to the text without merely repeating it?
• Are captions brief (while including vital information) and roughly of equal length?
• Are captions or sources missing?
• Can the messages be communicated better by being restructured into different formats, for example, descriptive text as a flow chart, a long series of points as a list, off-topic material as an appendix, or an interview as an audio file?
• Are examples and key points highlighted well in text boxes, sidebars and pull quotes?

SUBSTANCE (CONTENT)

Level of detail

• Is the content appropriate for the publication type?
• Is the content accessible by the intended audience, given their level of expertise in the subject matter?
• Is the subject matter adequately covered?
• Is the appropriate coverage (whether balance or emphasis) given to each topic?
• Does the main message come through or does tangential matter cloud it?
• Are there any gaps in content or areas where expansion is required?
• Is there too little or too much detail in some areas?
• Are there any areas where summarising is required?
• Are there passages that are repetitive, redundant or irrelevant (in terms of ideas contained in them as well as simply words) and if yes, can they be deleted?
• Is there information that is contradictory or outdated?
• Are new concepts and terms fully explained in context?
• Are unnecessary data included?
• In the case of multi-author works, are concepts presented and terms used consistently?

Argumentation

• Does the content have cohesion and form a meaningful, satisfying unit rather than seeming to be randomly collated information?
• Is the argumentation well thought out, well developed and convincing?
• Is there too little or too much explanation for ideas?
• Are there too few or too many examples, case studies, anecdotes, tips and other such devices supporting the arguments?
• Are assumptions properly supported?
• Are there gaps in logic?
• Are theories or concepts applied before they are introduced or explained?
• Are questions raised but not answered?
• Are there passages with ambiguous meaning?
• Are there passages that are confusing or don’t make sense?
• In the case of multi-author works, are transitions required to link the contributions?

Flow

• Is the pace of the document good?
• Does the narrative arc of the document move the content forward?
• Is there a clear, logical sequence to ideas?
• Are the transitions from one idea to the next logical and do they have breathing space?
• Is the information easy to read and assimilate?
• Is the text dense and difficult to read in some places?