Silent changes: What's marked up and what isn't?

There seems to be a divide in the editing community when it comes to marking up pages: some editors make silent edits while others track all changes. So which is best practice? And does it matter?

Two years ago, I worked with an author who was burnt by silent changes. The copyeditor of their previous book had made executive changes that weren’t flagged or negotiated. The author only noticed when they were reviewing the pages at the end. As a result, they had to check the entire manuscript to reinstate their original wording. Not ideal!

Truth is, some edits are so minor that it isn’t worth bothering the author about them. But there’s a fine line between minor tweaks and edits that override intentional choices.

In this post, I’ll explain why some editors make untracked changes, what they usually include and how it can affect the editing process.

What are silent changes?

Silent changes are edits made without activating Track Changes in Word (or the Suggesting tool in Google Docs). As a result, those edits aren’t visible to the author.

When I first trained as an editor, silent edits weren't an option. All your markup was done on the printed page. But since we transitioned to onscreen editing, we now have the option of hiding or showing our changes.

Why do some editors make silent changes?

There are a few reasons why editors/publishers prefer to make silent edits on a manuscript or text. Here are some of them:

• Minimises visual clutter. Minor edits often create visual clutter that can overwhelm the author and compete with more substantial language edits.

  
  

• Makes the manuscript easier to edit. Stylistic or formatting changes (such as fixing heading hierarchies, changing the point size or adding bulleted lists) make the manuscript easier to read and edit.

  
  

• Prioritises high-level edits. Making silent changes to spelling, punctuation and capitalisations means editors can focus on high-level edits, particularly if the manuscript requires heavy intervention.  

  
  

• Speeds up the Accept/Reject process: If these edits are done invisibly, authors won't need to check every line individually, making the Accept/Reject process faster.

What’s usually changed silently?

This varies from editor to editor. They may limit themselves to styling and formatting, or they may go as far as correcting spelling and minor punctuation. If an editor is in the latter category, it's best to warn the author so there won’t be any surprises later on. Here’s a list of what an editor might do invisibly:

• applying styles and formatting

• removing extra line spaces

• removing extra spaces in a sentence

• adding missing full stops

• adding bullets to lists

• replacing em dashes with spaced en dashes (Australian usage)

• replacing hyphens with en dashes in number ranges

• correcting obvious typos (‘teh’ instead of ‘the’)

• replacing straight quotes with curly quotes

• changing quotation marks that are the wrong way around

• replacing three dots with an ellipsis character

• applying style guide preferences (e.g. em dashes, serial commas)

• correcting simple punctuation

• ensuring consistent spelling

• ensuring title case consistency.

What are the pitfalls of silent editing?

Invisible editing isn’t right for every project or author. It can lead to changes that aren’t approved (and take ages to reinstate). It also means authors may not know where they’re going wrong – or why. For example, if an editor silently adds commas in all introductory clauses, an author may not see this or understand why it’s necessary, so they’ll keep making this mistake in the future.

Of course, some authors prefer silent intervention. They may be time-poor and dislike dealing with fussy edits, or they may be more focused on the message rather than the execution. As a result, they trust the editor to correct these minor details. But again, silent intervention should be stated or negotiated, never assumed.

What is my approach to silent changes?

In my editing practice, I like to show all markup, except where it doesn’t affect the content. I want authors to know exactly what’s changed and what hasn’t – and to approve those changes accordingly.

I’ve worked with authors who are very particular about spelling, syntax and punctuation, so I wouldn’t dream of correcting these invisibly. Plus, they often appreciate my rationale for those changes and find it improves their writing practice.

However, there are certain things I don't mark up for two reasons: one, they don’t affect meaning or style, and two, they can clutter the manuscript. They are:

• styling and formatting

• removal of extra line spaces

• removal of extra spaces in a sentence

• replacement of straight quotes with curly quotes

• replacement of three dots with an ellipsis character.

As you can see, these changes are minimal and don’t interfere with the integrity of the manuscript. Again, it really depends on the client. If they want executive changes made (such as changing all US spelling to Australian spelling or em dashes changed to spaced en dashes), then I do these silently.

Also, if I’m doing a final check of the manuscript and notice spelling or hyphenation issues that were overlooked in the first round (but originally marked up elsewhere), I’ll change these invisibly. (To find out more about my editing process, see What to expect when you work with a book editor.)

What about when authors make silent changes?

This can happen if authors disable Track Changes during the revision process. Any changes won’t be visible to the editor, which means errors might slip through. (That said, editors can use the Compare tool in the Review tab to see what’s changed, but this can be time-consuming.)

In my onboarding materials, I always advise authors to keep Track Changes on, but mistakes can happen. One way of avoiding this is for editors to lock Track Changes, but this requires a password, and changes can’t be accepted or rejected by the author until the file has been unlocked.

Takeaways: Silent changes

Editors have different approaches when it comes to silent changes, depending on their clients, process and personal preferences. In my own work, I only make silent changes that don’t affect the content or style (unless negotiated beforehand). Sure, it means edited pages may look busier than usual, but at least there’s transparency, and authors can accept or reject these changes as they see fit – no matter how minor they are.

Want to work with a copyeditor who keeps invisible editing to a minimum? Then check out my services page for rates or request a sample edit to get a feel for my style.