Editing versus Proofreading

All of us, as part of the language and technology industry, have witnessed an increasing tendency, or a need, to reinforce safety measures (or quality assurance steps) to protect “output” (and retain clients), along with the need to shorten turnaround times and costs at the same pace. Subject matter experts have always been a plus, and have remained unquestioned so far… so, not surprisingly, the result is this choking sensation we have while trying to get content out of the pipeline.

Then, what treatment can we administer? On the one hand, outlining what each task covers is a primary step to avoid the symptoms of the asphyxia. On the other hand, it is also vital to set resilient procedures to adjust them based on your clients’ expectations.

In the language service providers’ frame of mind, the typical translation cycle has a three-step core stage – Translation, Editing and Proofing. Basically, the second eye, the editor, should make sure the translator has followed QA metrics effectively. Such metrics are listed in our QA checklists, and are roughly the same for the whole industry, relating to glossary and TM’s compliance, grammar and spelling correctness, accuracy and completeness, consistency, and appropriateness in terms of registry and target audience. In this standard three-step cycle, proofers, or the third eye, should focus on language flow, tone and ease of reading of the text, while paying attention to layout and graphical or functional elements of the text as they go through it. Hovering over images and links is necessary to ensure a coherent and duly localized rendering is visualized. Editing times will vary based on the quality of the translation itself, ranging from double-checking to heavy correcting or even retranslating. If retranslation or heavy correcting is necessary, a new “editing” stage is unavoidable, which is usually named “proofing” or “proofreading”. The actual proofing task should run smoothly, just checking for consistency, completeness and naturalness. In fact, it should take more checking than fixing, which is not always true. Therefore, timing and budgeting should be adjusted accordingly, and the QA report is an objective metric for this decision. When the translator is known to offer a steady high level of quality and has a sound experience in the field, the cycle is shortened from a three-step process just to one comprising translation and proofing only. Under such circumstances, “proofreading” that content will imply a quick reading of the target, referencing to the source when necessary (to make sure number of paragraphs are ok, layout mirrors the source, fonts style is ok, and text flows naturally and consistently in the target text), as if someone has already taken care of the editing task (supposedly, that translator has the ability of self-editing his or her job). Production costs should account for up to a 20% of those planned for translation – i.e., if the translator’s rate is 0.04 USD per no match, the proofer’s rate should not surpass 0.008 USD per word. In terms of production times, if the translator has spent about 8 hours transferring a content of 3,000 words from the source to the target language, and the proofer can process that content in less than two hours, he or she will actually be proofreading the text, not editing it. Quality will define the type of revision performed, either editing or proofreading. In some other cases, timing will force the reviewer to scan the text instead of skimming it, therefore the reviewer will have to set a priority scale –ideally agreed upon with the client in advance, to focus on while reviewing. If expected quality is not attained at the end of the day, because the text actually asked for comprehensive editing rather than proofreading, results should be frankly reported. That is why it is so important to establish upfront and proactive communication with the client when the scope of the tasks is not clearly defined.

Roughly, editing should consist of major revisions while proofreading should require only cosmetic edits. As stated above, such edits are subject to the quality of the translation itself, but also will vary depending on the purpose of the proofreading, whether it is done for fine-tuning or as a final clean-up. Proofreading will also be determined by the proofer’s language command, both source and target languages, and his or her competencies as translators or reviewers. Whatever the case is, the source text should always be referenced to; when editing, most probably as an immediate reference, since the reviewer will be contrasting the source and target on a line by line basis, if not on a word by word basis in the frame of a CAT tool; while proofreading, reference to the source maybe more sporadic, when the idea is not clearly understood by the reader or to contrast layout and check for completeness. In such cases, the translated text should have gone through a complete editing stage, otherwise source should be referenced to on a line by line basis, and such source should not be the prepared file, but real source as created. For this proofreading task, the target text should ideally be in its ready-to-print or ready-to-play format to filter out any minimal inaccuracy or inappropriateness, especially if this task stands for the “final eye” of the project. Virtually, there is no proofreading instance in which the source text is not available to the reviewer. If so, then the reviewer will not be checking translation but an isolate target as if created in that language. The scope of his or her revision will be restricted to target language correctness and appropriateness, irrespective of the level of completeness or consistency of the text.

The table below intends to clarify what checks are generally expected at each stage. Even though many of them apply to both tasks, they are supposed to require minimal changes at the proofreading stage. If this is not the case, editing conditions should apply. As said before, variations may occur based on target context, subject matter, client’s requests, availability of materials, etc.

Editing	Proofing
Compliance with TM, glossary or any legacy material provided, along with client’s instructions (Xbench report)	Compliance with client’s instructions, if any.
Consistency (internally - Xbench report)	Overall consistency
Choice of words
Clarity	Clarity
Grammar	Grammar (with focus on style)
Message (completeness and accuracy)	Look and feel (and checking everything is translated)
Layout (basic: bolding, superscript, etc.)	Layout (complete)
Graphics – consistency with the main text, no missing translation	Graphics – alignment or positioning, correct colors, images, no missing elements
Fact-checking (mistranslations)	Text flows naturally and easily
Figures are ok and localized consistently when appropriate (X-bench report)	Figures are ok and localized consistently when appropriate
Symbols are correctly typed and spaced	Symbols are consistent
Acronyms and abbreviations are consistent and duly translated when appropriate
Spelling	Spelling
Names	Names
Addresses	Addresses
Phone numbers	Phone numbers
Web addresses	Web addresses
E-mail addresses	E-mail addresses
Trademarks correctly typed and placed	Sponsor logo or trademarks inclusion and positioning
Hyperlinks, links and other references within the document are not corrupted, and are duly localized and consistent.	Functional checks for links, fields, TOCs, etc.

Broadly speaking, there are not doubts in terms of what editing covers, but definitely many grey areas come up when proofreading is requested. To play safe, the linguist in charge should always have, at least, clear hints on:

-          Time frame expected to perform the task

-          Materials to reference to while performing the task

-          Budget for such task

-          Stages that the text has gone through before reaching his or her hands

-          Reports that should be filled in based on the performance of the task

-          Relevant information on the end of the materials (to publish in hardcopies; for banners; for Internet broadcasting; etc.) and the target readers or users, among others.

Proofreaders should always bear in mind that, irrespective of what extent they have been asked to proof to, they cannot omit necessary corrections because they are not paid or timed for them. Communication is the only way to attain a good quality end product, and negotiations will succeed if objective information is reported.