I get a lot of questions about working with an editor on your book, and today I’m answering them. Tune in to learn the different ways you can work with an editor, the different types of editing available, and the pros and cons of working with an editor.

Let’s get into it.

In this episode, I’m talking about a topic that’s still pretty mysterious to a lot of academics: editing. I’m going to try to demystify the process of working with an editor. You know me — I’ve never met a hidden curriculum I didn’t try to expose. So I’m going to tell you all the details about having your work edited, including what editors do (and what they don’t), how the process works, and what you need to know to make the most of it.

I’ll be answering a few common questions I’ve heard from prospective clients and that I see floating around in the internet streets.

Question 1: Why would I work with an editor?

You work with an editor to improve your work. Plain and simple.

That doesn’t mean your writing is bad — it just means you see room for improvement and want to make it stronger, clearer, or more effective. An editor’s job is to make your work shine brighter, not to ghostwrite or make it something it’s not. You might work with an editor because:

• You’ve hit an impasse and can’t identify what needs changing — or you know what needs work but not how to fix it.
• You’ve been staring at your manuscript for too long and need an objective outside eye.
• You’re aware of your own writing quirks and want expert help in refining them (like one of my past clients who knew they were wordy and wanted to tighten up their writing).

Also, let’s normalize this: working with an editor is not cheating. So many well-known, award-winning authors work with editors. This is how good writing happens — through collaboration, revision, and support.

Question 2: What are the different types of editing?

There are several types of editing, but I’m focusing on copyediting and developmental editing.

Copyediting addresses technical details like:

• Grammar
• Punctuation
• Citation formatting
• Consistency across your manuscript

Copyeditors may correct errors or tighten up your writing by eliminating redundancies. For example, if you’ve told your editor to capitalize “Black” as a racial category, they’ll make sure that’s consistent throughout your manuscript.

Copyediting typically happens late in the process — right before peer review or just before final submission to your publisher.

Developmental editing is broader and happens much earlier. It focuses on:

• Argument clarity
• Book structure
• Use of evidence
• Tone and style

A developmental editor can help you figure out if your evidence supports your claims, whether your tone resonates with your target audience, and whether your structure supports your overall argument. I like to say that a developmental editor is like a very smart non-expert — they help make your book legible to readers beyond your discipline.

And trust me — developmental editing should happen before peer review. I’ve had clients come to me post-peer review, overwhelmed by conflicting comments. It’s much more effective to bring in a developmental editor earlier so you don’t have to go back and rework foundational aspects of your book later on.

In my group program, Elevate, we provide developmental editing. We start with your argument and build the rest of your book around it. You receive regular feedback to ensure your argument is clear and well-supported, your engagement with the literature is compelling, and your structure is solid. We also surface issues you might not even be aware of as you write.

Question 3: What are the pros and cons of working with an editor?

Pros:

• You get expert eyes on your work.
• Editors can help make your writing more persuasive, elegant, and cohesive.
• They catch things that may have gone off-track during multiple revisions (you know — that orphaned paragraph that never quite fit).
• They smooth out transitions and clarify your argument from start to finish.

Bringing in an editor early can also prevent massive revisions later — revisions that feel painful and discouraging after years of work. Editors don’t just make your writing better; they make your revision process smoother and more focused.

Considerations (not necessarily cons):

• Cost: Good editors are expensive — this is a specialized skill set. Tools like ChatGPT or Grammarly aren’t substitutes for a trained editor. Neither are workshops or feedback from colleagues, who often bring their own biases to your work. 👉 Pro tip: Try to secure university funding to support editing costs — especially since publishing is part of your academic job.
  
• Time: Good editors are usually booked out. Build in time to send your work to them and, just as importantly, to digest and apply their feedback. When I did manuscript assessments, my reports ran 10–20 pages long — that’s a lot of information to process and revise from.

I hope this episode makes editing feel less intimidating and gives you a clearer idea of what to expect when you work with an editor. Remember: this kind of support isn’t a shortcut — it’s part of a smart, strategic writing process.

See you next time!