

Home List Rules User Help Fun Stuff Subscribe Websites Links ONElist Updates		How do freelancers find work? Anyone who might be considering freelancing for book publishers should run out and score a copy of Trumbull Rogers's Editorial Freelancing: A Practical Guide (Bayside, NY: Aletheia Publications, 1995). This page is just a compilation of one person's posts to the mailing list on the subject of getting copyediting and proofreading work. Freelancers get work any way they can--no one can escape the tedium of tracking it down, and everyone seems to have their own secret methods for going about it. In general, those of us operating on the periphery of the Happy Land of Book Publishing send out mail, cold call, answer advertisements, and network like bunnies whenever the opportunity presents itself. Copyeditors and proofreaders often have to jump through additional hoops in the form of publisher tests before we're considered for work. Very lucky freelancers get work by referral--I've gotten work this way, so it can happen. (I just wish it would happen more often.) Helpful Definitions Good freelancers Those who can do the job and find more work. Bad freelancers Those who can't do the job or those too timid to scramble for more work. If this sounds like a highly unpleasant and Darwinian process, that's only because it is. I really don't think freelancing is a good career choice for the easily depressed or the faint of heart. Thoughts on cold calling Cold calling sucks rocks. I hate it, the person on the receiving end hates it, everyone hates it. So that's not the issue. Not everyone agrees that it's a good idea, but my own thinking is that cold calling is the best route to reliable information, unless you really prefer mailing countless résumés into the vasty void. At a publishing company, one person--or scores of people--may be responsible for assigning freelance work. Figuring out who you need to talk to can be a major challenge, and cold calling saves you from wasting time, effort, and postage on the wrong ones. Locating victims First off, consult the Literary Marketplace (LMP is found on the reference shelf of a library near you). LMP lists phone numbers, addresses, major staff, and other information about publishers. Rather than calling every publisher in the book, look over their subject areas and decide which ones are most likely to suit your particular sort of skills (more on this below). I don't think it's worthwhile to contact publishers who do less than 20 books a year unless they're local, so you could also narrow down your choices that way. Most people like to read fiction, but a love of reading isn't necessary for this job--merely an ability to make deadlines. You don't have to like a subject to work on it. Nonfiction (such as how-to, technical, and textbooks) is what pays the bills for most freelancers. You don't have to specialize in any particular subject, nor do you have to be a subject expert. I've done any number of engineering and medical books, and I'm neither an engineer nor a doctor (not even close). So this is what I meant by "skills": the more subjects you can work with, the more publishers you can potentially work for. (On the other paw, if you're marketing yourself as a content specialist, you'd better actually be one, right?) Ruthlessly attacking victims My personal cold calling approach isn't complicated. I phone up publishers and ask who wrangles the company's freelancers. You may get the "duh, I dunno" response. When this happens, ask for managing editors; if they don't handle the freelancers, they'll know who does. In fact, some people avoid the preliminaries and just go straight for the managing editor in all cases. A safe second choice (especially for proofreaders) is often the production editor. (There's wild variation in job titles among publishers--and some profoundly stupid people answer main phone lines at some places. As a last resort ask for "any supervising editor," and enunciate it carefully.) At any rate, always avoid human resources and personnel departments--they have nothing to do with the hiring of freelancers. You can send them your résumé if you'd like; they'll helpfully take care of it throwing it away for you. Assorted phone stuff Use a phone script. Write down the major points you want to cover before you start dialing (also keep your résumé on hand for reference). If cold calling makes you sweat bullets and hyperventilate, practice on a friend before you call around. (Heck, call me--I'll talk to anybody, and I'd be happy to give you a hard time.) Don't chat up voice mail. If they don't recognize your name, they probably won't bother to return your call. Get telephone numbers before you let yourself be transferred so that you can try to direct dial the actual human later. Never admit that you've ever heard of "Make $$$ Reading Books." Some in-house editors will casually drop hints about this sort of publication into phone conversations as a screening tactic. Don't take the bait (or be baited). Take notes. Do make note of things mentioned in the call that you can bring up later in your correspondence (it's a means of summoning your identity back to the editor's mind). Any new information you get about the publisher is valuable--write it down, or you'll forget it. After a few phone calls, the conversations all blur together, so be sure to start a new sheet for each call. Ask victims to spell their name, give you their job title, and verify the address information. Nothing ticks someone off more than seeing his or her name misspelled, and there's only one way to avoid it. (Honesty never hurts: "I don't want to misspell your name, so could I quickly check the spelling with you?") Remember that you'll have to know their job title for the address block on your letter, so ask for this as well. Also verify the address, because you never know where your call is actually going. (Don't rely on LMP for any of this information, because it's out of date the minute it hits the shelf.) Don't keep people on the phone all day. They're busy and they have deadlines looming, so get it done and move on. Don't overbook. If you're going to be taking tests, limit the number of calls--and thus the number of incoming tests--to something you can rationally handle in a given period. Cover letter stuff I'm not the Master of Cover Letters. In fact, I hate writing letters. All sorts of Business Yodas write books on this topic, and it can't hurt anyone to invest in a few. There are a few things that are generally true: Don't mail out a form letter. Sure, you'll want to have a standard letter prepared ahead of time, especially if you're calling multiple publishers. But you have to alter this standard letter to suit each situation. Don't be too formal, and don't be too informal. You must find the balance, young Jedi. If you're still writing "Please find enclosed the following," invest in a modern business communications book. You can go too far the other direction as well--just remember this is a potential client, not a potential pen pal. Remind people about your phone calls. "Hi, [Editor Guy]. Thanks for taking the time to talk with me on the phone on Wednesday about freelance snorkeling for your company. You may recall that I mentioned my great love of toaster ovens, so I'm excited about an opportunity to work on your books about lemming psychology." Or whatever. Proofread everything before you send it. Recognize your limitations: most people can't proofread their own material, and you can't afford any mistakes--typos are death. So give it to other, and have them to proofred it aslo. Thoughts on test taking My opinion? Proofreading tests, yay. Copyediting tests, yuck. If you're just starting out, never pass up a company test--you get free practice, and it never hurts to be tossed into yet another freelance pool. On the other paw, if you're not a beginner, find out first whether they're seriously interested in acquiring new freelancers. If they aren't, why waste your time on unpaid work? You could use it looking for more promising victims. Karen Judd's book Copyediting: A Practical Guide (2nd ed., Los Altos, Calif.: Crisp Publications, 1990) can teach you what you need to know about the mechanics of copyediting and proofreading. (Buy her book. Buy it right now. Read all of it.) Judd also discusses publisher tests: "For copyediting tests, cheating is required!" (283). Her recommendations have always struck me as common sense, rather than as cheating per se. I'll elaborate on a few of the things she mentions, and also cover a couple matters that she doesn't. Make photocopies. Some tests say "don't photocopy this test." Heck with that. Always work on photocopies of the test, not the original. Once you're certain it's a stellar job, then copy your marks onto the original to return to the publisher (it's way, way too easy to goof when copying marks, so be extra careful). Give average times. If they don't ask, don't tell. But if the publisher does ask how long you took with the test, be reasonable. These tests are not typical of the majority of work; you're going to sweat over this sucker and read it over and over (not to mention that recopying part), so honesty is not the best policy. Give your time for a comparable nasty job. If you don't know what your comparable time is, try timing yourself on your first run. (But don't exaggerate and credit yourself with blinding speed--they know the test is a bear, so they also know it ought to take longer than a normal job.) Use your reference books. You have dictionaries, encyclopedias, and style manuals at your disposal. So use the darn things--find the spellings and find the facts. When in doubt, look things up. In fact, look things up even when you're not in doubt, 'cause you could be wrong. This applies to both copyediting and proofreading tests. Get help. This isn't school, it's work. If you need help, ask another freelancer's opinion. (Hey, scanners are a wonderful thing. Try this. Scan your finished copy as a JPEG, and shrink it to a rational-but-readable-size; email it to someone else as an attachment, and find out what they think before you send the test back.) I do not, however, recommend that you get someone else to complete your test for you--and I shouldn't have to explain why. Do a style sheet. You'll make up a style sheet while you're working on copyediting tests anyway, so why not just send it back with the test? Consider it yet another way to prove that you know what you're doing. Mark up the text elements. Never, ever forget to mark the elements on your copyediting tests. Make up your own codes if a set wasn't provided. Also don't forget to call out your first cites for footnotes, tables, and figures in the margins. If you don't know what I'm talking about here, go back and read Judd's book on copyediting again. Write queries. Queries are expected, so show that you know when and how to write good ones. I haven't heard any complaints about Post-its on tests, so I assume they're okay with most places (be sure to write the page number and an AU indicator on them); but it's best to write the query directly on the test copy as well. Use a dark color on your final draft. I always use pen, but if you're a pencil person, use dark colors that will come out if someone photocopies your test. Write your name, address, phone number, and email address on the first page of the test. Separate enclosures often get separated, after all. Consider putting this information on the back of every page (perhaps with a stamp or by running the pages through your printer). If the test arrived as loose pages, be sure to staple them securely together before you mail it back. Send the test back on time! The deadline is usually two or three weeks, but the sooner you get it back, the less time they have to forget who you are. No kidding--I know someone who called for not one, but three extensions on a test deadline (this is not a good way to remind people of your existence). Start a test file. An interesting phenomenon: a number of publishers use the same copyediting tests. If you've already got a certain test on file, you can whip it out and copy off it. Saves time, saves work. This can also be useful when publishers send you nth-generation unreadable photocopies of their tests--you may get lucky and discover you have a better copy on file. And a photocopy of your work can also save your bacon when the publisher loses your test before anyone has a chance to look it over (yes, it's an imperfect universe and this does happen). Stray observations on proofreading tests Proofreading tests are complicated, so I'm giving them a separate discussion. Most proofreading tests consist of two parts: a batch of copyedited manuscript pages and a corresponding batch of typeset page proofs or galleys. You compare the manuscript copy to the typeset copy, and you mark up the latter (you never make any marks on the manuscript part). A few proofreading tests won't include manuscript--this is "cold proofreading"; when you're left to your own devices this way, remember that you're not the copyeditor, and practice restraint. Some tests may also include a third part, the book's design specifications; you refer to these when you check the design elements on the page proofs. When a test doesn't include the spec sheet, you just aim for internal consistency in the proofs. Note: The material you get when you're working on an actual proofreading job will usually include the editor's style sheet. I've never seen one of these included with a test myself, but that doesn't mean it never happens. If you get a style sheet, follow it. If you don't get a style sheet, you're still responsible for spotting style wobbles. Proofreading tests and copyediting tests are two different creatures, and you do not mark them up in the same way. Learn the difference before you take the tests. Never do any gratuitous marking on a proofreading test, but do always fix genuine editorial errors (mark 'em on the proofs, and when in doubt, query 'em). In tests of proofreading against manuscript copy, be sure that you code your corrections as either printer (pe) or editor (ea/ee) mistakes--you're responsible for assigning the blame. You should also highlight a first cite and call it out in the margin; you also do this for all footnotes. As a general rule, the photocopies of proofreading tests tend to be awful; you do what you can, and query when you just can't read it. Many of the proofreading tests in circulation are quite old, and are based on the production methods of earlier days (some presses still send out old galley-based tests); so you need to watch out for rivers and broken, flipped, or misaligned type. Some all-time favorite locations for test typos. You've finished your first run through the text: you've seen to the spelling and punctuation, you've mended the style wobbles, you've filled in the missing text, and you've zapped the repetitions. Now you'll need to make separate runs on typical problem areas: The folios and running heads are always bad news--watch for misnumbering, wrong content, wrong fonts, and wrong alignment. Head elements will use wrong type sizes, wrong fonts, and wrong capitalization. Misspellings are snuck into all-caps heads where they're difficult to spot. Lists are often numbered wrong, especially when they carry over a page break. Right margin line break problems include bad breaks and ladders (the same word stacked more than three or more times at the margin). Where a word is supposed to break is not a matter of intuition--use the dictionary. The en dash/hyphen substitution is a particularly evil test typo in this location. Word repetition past a line break also pops up now and then. Tables and figures must be done separately. For legends, the words "figure" and "table" and the numbers will be set in the wrong fonts or at wrong sizes. The text inside tables and in figure art labels will contain errors. If a table or figure shows up in the wrong place (before or too far after the first cite), query it. Eyeballing the page layout is a separate step. Orphans and widows will appear, among other things. And remember to look for word breaks at the bottom of the recto. Returning the test Okay, you've done the test, and you're ready to return it. Paperclip your business card to the test (business cards = editor Rolodexes), and write a cover letter. If you're stuck, I'm just full of suggestions (among other things): Thank whomever for sending you the test. Briefly remind them of who you are--provide a helpful update on your situation, and enclose your résumé. (You've already sent your résumé? Fine, send 'em another one.) Include some variation on this phrase: "I'll telephone you in [number of weeks] to talk about my test." Here's the thing. An average in-house editor's desk resembles a squirrel's nest (to quote a memo I once got, "your package is on my desk, and I'll let you know if I find it"). So you do need to check back about your test. Keep in mind that these tests aren't a priority item for people who live by book deadlines, so two to three weeks is a reasonable amount of time for a test result/decision. If you discover that nothing has been done when you check back, say you'll check back in a few more weeks. Make a note of it, and do it. It once took a year of polite, patient reminders before someone looked over one of my tests (I got a heap of work out of that one in the end, so sometimes it's worth it). Thoughts on corporate changes So once you've found a steady source of well-paying work, you can only hope that (a) you don't accidentally do something stupid on a job or rub your editor the wrong way, (b) no one balks at your rate increases, and (c) your publisher doesn't get acquired by another one. In-house turnover is a fact of life--editors come, editors go. But buy-outs too often are followed by personnel strip mining. And you're in as much trouble as the in-house editors are, because they're the people who know you. In my own experience, I've found that corporate acquisitions are the fast-track to freelancer Siberia--I've lost count of the number of times I've been exiled after these. The alternate scenario isn't any more attractive: let's say a publisher you've worked with for years is swallowed by a larger company and all of the management is replaced--and suddenly the new guys demand that you resubmit your résumé and take a company test. (Hey, it's only funny when it's not you.) So my advice these days is that, the minute you hear an acquisition rumor, you should overcome any decent urges to leave people alone, and start dialing or emailing. Be certain that your soon-to-be-fired editors know that you love them, that you want to work them again, and that they should carry you along to their new employers. Note: The author of this FAQ retains the copyright to the contents.

How do freelancers find work?

Anyone who might be considering freelancing for book publishers should run out and score a copy of Trumbull Rogers's Editorial Freelancing: A Practical Guide (Bayside, NY: Aletheia Publications, 1995). This page is just a compilation of one person's posts to the mailing list on the subject of getting copyediting and proofreading work.

Freelancers get work any way they can--no one can escape the tedium of tracking it down, and everyone seems to have their own secret methods for going about it. In general, those of us operating on the periphery of the Happy Land of Book Publishing send out mail, cold call, answer advertisements, and network like bunnies whenever the opportunity presents itself. Copyeditors and proofreaders often have to jump through additional hoops in the form of publisher tests before we're considered for work. Very lucky freelancers get work by referral--I've gotten work this way, so it can happen. (I just wish it would happen more often.)

Helpful Definitions

Good freelancers: Those who can do the job and find more work.
Bad freelancers: Those who can't do the job or those too timid to scramble for more work.

If this sounds like a highly unpleasant and Darwinian process, that's only because it is. I really don't think freelancing is a good career choice for the easily depressed or the faint of heart.

Thoughts on cold calling

Cold calling sucks rocks. I hate it, the person on the receiving end hates it, everyone hates it. So that's not the issue. Not everyone agrees that it's a good idea, but my own thinking is that cold calling is the best route to reliable information, unless you really prefer mailing countless résumés into the vasty void. At a publishing company, one person--or scores of people--may be responsible for assigning freelance work. Figuring out who you need to talk to can be a major challenge, and cold calling saves you from wasting time, effort, and postage on the wrong ones.

Locating victims

First off, consult the Literary Marketplace (LMP is found on the reference shelf of a library near you). LMP lists phone numbers, addresses, major staff, and other information about publishers. Rather than calling every publisher in the book, look over their subject areas and decide which ones are most likely to suit your particular sort of skills (more on this below). I don't think it's worthwhile to contact publishers who do less than 20 books a year unless they're local, so you could also narrow down your choices that way.

Most people like to read fiction, but a love of reading isn't necessary for this job--merely an ability to make deadlines. You don't have to like a subject to work on it. Nonfiction (such as how-to, technical, and textbooks) is what pays the bills for most freelancers. You don't have to specialize in any particular subject, nor do you have to be a subject expert. I've done any number of engineering and medical books, and I'm neither an engineer nor a doctor (not even close). So this is what I meant by "skills": the more subjects you can work with, the more publishers you can potentially work for. (On the other paw, if you're marketing yourself as a content specialist, you'd better actually be one, right?)

Ruthlessly attacking victims

My personal cold calling approach isn't complicated. I phone up publishers and ask who wrangles the company's freelancers. You may get the "duh, I dunno" response. When this happens, ask for managing editors; if they don't handle the freelancers, they'll know who does. In fact, some people avoid the preliminaries and just go straight for the managing editor in all cases. A safe second choice (especially for proofreaders) is often the production editor. (There's wild variation in job titles among publishers--and some profoundly stupid people answer main phone lines at some places. As a last resort ask for "any supervising editor," and enunciate it carefully.)

At any rate, always avoid human resources and personnel departments--they have nothing to do with the hiring of freelancers. You can send them your résumé if you'd like; they'll helpfully take care of it throwing it away for you.

Assorted phone stuff

Use a phone script. Write down the major points you want to cover before you start dialing (also keep your résumé on hand for reference). If cold calling makes you sweat bullets and hyperventilate, practice on a friend before you call around. (Heck, call me--I'll talk to anybody, and I'd be happy to give you a hard time.)
Don't chat up voice mail. If they don't recognize your name, they probably won't bother to return your call. Get telephone numbers before you let yourself be transferred so that you can try to direct dial the actual human later.
Never admit that you've ever heard of "Make $$$ Reading Books." Some in-house editors will casually drop hints about this sort of publication into phone conversations as a screening tactic. Don't take the bait (or be baited).
Take notes. Do make note of things mentioned in the call that you can bring up later in your correspondence (it's a means of summoning your identity back to the editor's mind). Any new information you get about the publisher is valuable--write it down, or you'll forget it. After a few phone calls, the conversations all blur together, so be sure to start a new sheet for each call.
Ask victims to spell their name, give you their job title, and verify the address information. Nothing ticks someone off more than seeing his or her name misspelled, and there's only one way to avoid it. (Honesty never hurts: "I don't want to misspell your name, so could I quickly check the spelling with you?") Remember that you'll have to know their job title for the address block on your letter, so ask for this as well. Also verify the address, because you never know where your call is actually going. (Don't rely on LMP for any of this information, because it's out of date the minute it hits the shelf.)
Don't keep people on the phone all day. They're busy and they have deadlines looming, so get it done and move on.
Don't overbook. If you're going to be taking tests, limit the number of calls--and thus the number of incoming tests--to something you can rationally handle in a given period.

Cover letter stuff

I'm not the Master of Cover Letters. In fact, I hate writing letters. All sorts of Business Yodas write books on this topic, and it can't hurt anyone to invest in a few. There are a few things that are generally true:

Don't mail out a form letter. Sure, you'll want to have a standard letter prepared ahead of time, especially if you're calling multiple publishers. But you have to alter this standard letter to suit each situation.
Don't be too formal, and don't be too informal. You must find the balance, young Jedi. If you're still writing "Please find enclosed the following," invest in a modern business communications book. You can go too far the other direction as well--just remember this is a potential client, not a potential pen pal.
Remind people about your phone calls. "Hi, [Editor Guy]. Thanks for taking the time to talk with me on the phone on Wednesday about freelance snorkeling for your company. You may recall that I mentioned my great love of toaster ovens, so I'm excited about an opportunity to work on your books about lemming psychology." Or whatever.
Proofread everything before you send it. Recognize your limitations: most people can't proofread their own material, and you can't afford any mistakes--typos are death. So give it to other, and have them to proofred it aslo.

Thoughts on test taking

My opinion? Proofreading tests, yay. Copyediting tests, yuck. If you're just starting out, never pass up a company test--you get free practice, and it never hurts to be tossed into yet another freelance pool. On the other paw, if you're not a beginner, find out first whether they're seriously interested in acquiring new freelancers. If they aren't, why waste your time on unpaid work? You could use it looking for more promising victims.

Karen Judd's book Copyediting: A Practical Guide (2nd ed., Los Altos, Calif.: Crisp Publications, 1990) can teach you what you need to know about the mechanics of copyediting and proofreading. (Buy her book. Buy it right now. Read all of it.) Judd also discusses publisher tests: "For copyediting tests, cheating is required!" (283). Her recommendations have always struck me as common sense, rather than as cheating per se. I'll elaborate on a few of the things she mentions, and also cover a couple matters that she doesn't.

Make photocopies. Some tests say "don't photocopy this test." Heck with that. Always work on photocopies of the test, not the original. Once you're certain it's a stellar job, then copy your marks onto the original to return to the publisher (it's way, way too easy to goof when copying marks, so be extra careful).
Give average times. If they don't ask, don't tell. But if the publisher does ask how long you took with the test, be reasonable. These tests are not typical of the majority of work; you're going to sweat over this sucker and read it over and over (not to mention that recopying part), so honesty is not the best policy. Give your time for a comparable nasty job. If you don't know what your comparable time is, try timing yourself on your first run. (But don't exaggerate and credit yourself with blinding speed--they know the test is a bear, so they also know it ought to take longer than a normal job.)
Use your reference books. You have dictionaries, encyclopedias, and style manuals at your disposal. So use the darn things--find the spellings and find the facts. When in doubt, look things up. In fact, look things up even when you're not in doubt, 'cause you could be wrong. This applies to both copyediting and proofreading tests.
Get help. This isn't school, it's work. If you need help, ask another freelancer's opinion. (Hey, scanners are a wonderful thing. Try this. Scan your finished copy as a JPEG, and shrink it to a rational-but-readable-size; email it to someone else as an attachment, and find out what they think before you send the test back.) I do not, however, recommend that you get someone else to complete your test for you--and I shouldn't have to explain why.
Do a style sheet. You'll make up a style sheet while you're working on copyediting tests anyway, so why not just send it back with the test? Consider it yet another way to prove that you know what you're doing.
Mark up the text elements. Never, ever forget to mark the elements on your copyediting tests. Make up your own codes if a set wasn't provided. Also don't forget to call out your first cites for footnotes, tables, and figures in the margins. If you don't know what I'm talking about here, go back and read Judd's book on copyediting again.
Write queries. Queries are expected, so show that you know when and how to write good ones. I haven't heard any complaints about Post-its on tests, so I assume they're okay with most places (be sure to write the page number and an AU indicator on them); but it's best to write the query directly on the test copy as well.
Use a dark color on your final draft. I always use pen, but if you're a pencil person, use dark colors that will come out if someone photocopies your test.
Write your name, address, phone number, and email address on the first page of the test. Separate enclosures often get separated, after all. Consider putting this information on the back of every page (perhaps with a stamp or by running the pages through your printer). If the test arrived as loose pages, be sure to staple them securely together before you mail it back.
Send the test back on time! The deadline is usually two or three weeks, but the sooner you get it back, the less time they have to forget who you are. No kidding--I know someone who called for not one, but three extensions on a test deadline (this is not a good way to remind people of your existence).
Start a test file. An interesting phenomenon: a number of publishers use the same copyediting tests. If you've already got a certain test on file, you can whip it out and copy off it. Saves time, saves work. This can also be useful when publishers send you nth-generation unreadable photocopies of their tests--you may get lucky and discover you have a better copy on file. And a photocopy of your work can also save your bacon when the publisher loses your test before anyone has a chance to look it over (yes, it's an imperfect universe and this does happen).

Stray observations on proofreading tests

Proofreading tests are complicated, so I'm giving them a separate discussion. Most proofreading tests consist of two parts: a batch of copyedited manuscript pages and a corresponding batch of typeset page proofs or galleys. You compare the manuscript copy to the typeset copy, and you mark up the latter (you never make any marks on the manuscript part). A few proofreading tests won't include manuscript--this is "cold proofreading"; when you're left to your own devices this way, remember that you're not the copyeditor, and practice restraint. Some tests may also include a third part, the book's design specifications; you refer to these when you check the design elements on the page proofs. When a test doesn't include the spec sheet, you just aim for internal consistency in the proofs.

Note: The material you get when you're working on an actual proofreading job will usually include the editor's style sheet. I've never seen one of these included with a test myself, but that doesn't mean it never happens. If you get a style sheet, follow it. If you don't get a style sheet, you're still responsible for spotting style wobbles.

Proofreading tests and copyediting tests are two different creatures, and you do not mark them up in the same way. Learn the difference before you take the tests. Never do any gratuitous marking on a proofreading test, but do always fix genuine editorial errors (mark 'em on the proofs, and when in doubt, query 'em). In tests of proofreading against manuscript copy, be sure that you code your corrections as either printer (pe) or editor (ea/ee) mistakes--you're responsible for assigning the blame. You should also highlight a first cite and call it out in the margin; you also do this for all footnotes.

As a general rule, the photocopies of proofreading tests tend to be awful; you do what you can, and query when you just can't read it. Many of the proofreading tests in circulation are quite old, and are based on the production methods of earlier days (some presses still send out old galley-based tests); so you need to watch out for rivers and broken, flipped, or misaligned type.

Some all-time favorite locations for test typos. You've finished your first run through the text: you've seen to the spelling and punctuation, you've mended the style wobbles, you've filled in the missing text, and you've zapped the repetitions. Now you'll need to make separate runs on typical problem areas:

The folios and running heads are always bad news--watch for misnumbering, wrong content, wrong fonts, and wrong alignment.
Head elements will use wrong type sizes, wrong fonts, and wrong capitalization. Misspellings are snuck into all-caps heads where they're difficult to spot.
Lists are often numbered wrong, especially when they carry over a page break.
Right margin line break problems include bad breaks and ladders (the same word stacked more than three or more times at the margin). Where a word is supposed to break is not a matter of intuition--use the dictionary. The en dash/hyphen substitution is a particularly evil test typo in this location. Word repetition past a line break also pops up now and then.
Tables and figures must be done separately. For legends, the words "figure" and "table" and the numbers will be set in the wrong fonts or at wrong sizes. The text inside tables and in figure art labels will contain errors. If a table or figure shows up in the wrong place (before or too far after the first cite), query it.
Eyeballing the page layout is a separate step. Orphans and widows will appear, among other things. And remember to look for word breaks at the bottom of the recto.

Returning the test

Okay, you've done the test, and you're ready to return it. Paperclip your business card to the test (business cards = editor Rolodexes), and write a cover letter. If you're stuck, I'm just full of suggestions (among other things):

Thank whomever for sending you the test.
Briefly remind them of who you are--provide a helpful update on your situation, and enclose your résumé. (You've already sent your résumé? Fine, send 'em another one.)
Include some variation on this phrase: "I'll telephone you in [number of weeks] to talk about my test."

Here's the thing. An average in-house editor's desk resembles a squirrel's nest (to quote a memo I once got, "your package is on my desk, and I'll let you know if I find it"). So you do need to check back about your test. Keep in mind that these tests aren't a priority item for people who live by book deadlines, so two to three weeks is a reasonable amount of time for a test result/decision.

If you discover that nothing has been done when you check back, say you'll check back in a few more weeks. Make a note of it, and do it. It once took a year of polite, patient reminders before someone looked over one of my tests (I got a heap of work out of that one in the end, so sometimes it's worth it).

Thoughts on corporate changes

So once you've found a steady source of well-paying work, you can only hope that (a) you don't accidentally do something stupid on a job or rub your editor the wrong way, (b) no one balks at your rate increases, and (c) your publisher doesn't get acquired by another one. In-house turnover is a fact of life--editors come, editors go. But buy-outs too often are followed by personnel strip mining. And you're in as much trouble as the in-house editors are, because they're the people who know you.

In my own experience, I've found that corporate acquisitions are the fast-track to freelancer Siberia--I've lost count of the number of times I've been exiled after these. The alternate scenario isn't any more attractive: let's say a publisher you've worked with for years is swallowed by a larger company and all of the management is replaced--and suddenly the new guys demand that you resubmit your résumé and take a company test. (Hey, it's only funny when it's not you.) So my advice these days is that, the minute you hear an acquisition rumor, you should overcome any decent urges to leave people alone, and start dialing or emailing. Be certain that your soon-to-be-fired editors know that you love them, that you want to work them again, and that they should carry you along to their new employers.

Note: The author of this FAQ retains the copyright to the contents.


Copyright © 1999, Vickie West, kitsune@netusa1.net. Best viewed with Internet Explorer 3.0/Netscape 4.0 and above.