Join
Contact

Clear Lines, Smooth Workflows: Mastering Communication with Editorial Vendors

Date postedSeptember 2, 2025
Posted By: Michael Haskell Committees,

For many publishers, bringing a manuscript that has been accepted for publication to typesetting will involve outside vendors—either packagers who will handle the project through production of the final printer files or freelance copy editors who will work with the author and deliver the final MS files, ready for the compositor. Often a publisher uses a mix of both workflows, and each requires its own kind of communication with the outside vendor. In either case, clear communication—the setting of expectations, an outline of responsibilities, mutually agreed milestones, and a definitive list of deliverables—is key to the workflow’s success.

Editorial Responsibilities

The nature of the vendor’s editorial responsibilities will of course vary for a packager versus a freelance copy editor. In both cases, though, the publisher must outline what they expect. Is the vendor expected to apply typesetting styles throughout the MS, or is this the publisher’s responsibility? If the latter, how deep a knowledge of the styles library is the vendor expected to have? Is the publisher asking them to call out possible errors? To suggest changes to the chosen styles? Or to ignore styling and focus on purely editorial matters?

For both a freelance copy editor and the copyediting service provided by a packager, it is also important to set out the range of responsibilities. To what extent should the copy editor provide fact checking? Is the editor responsible for testing URLs that the author has included to make sure they are still valid? To what extent should the editor seek to fill in factual or logical gaps in the author’s argument?

Each of these matters might have different answers depending on the complexity of the MS and the requirements of the project. It is crucial to define levels of editorial involvement (light, medium, and heavy, for example) and what each of these means in terms of editorial intervention, speed of editing (a baseline number of pages per hour), and compensation.

The initial review of the author’s MS by the publisher’s production editor (or equivalent position) is an important step in making sure the vendor knows what is expected. There will inevitably be massive variation among manuscripts and their state of readiness, even in lists with tightly defined subject matter or style. The production editor’s review of a particular MS is the best tool for capturing its idiosyncrasies and communicating to the vendor their editorial responsibilities in addition to the standard expectations already discussed.

Other Responsibilities

In addition to more purely editorial responsibilities, several other matters should be laid out so that expectations are clear.

  • Communication with the Author: What is the vendor expected to communicate versus the publisher? Who will inform the author of the editorial schedule? Who is expected to explain the review process and the requirements for which tools or software the author is expected to use to review the editing? These answers will likely vary between a packager workflow and a freelance workflow, and the publisher needs to make sure the vendor understands what is expected of them.
  • Schedule and Milestones: What progress reports is the publisher expecting from the vendor? What schedule milestones is the vendor responsible for, and which will be dealt with by the publisher?
  • Deliverables: The publisher should clearly lay out what the vendor is expected to deliver at the end of the project, whether that is final clean MS files (and in what format?) or printer-ready PDFs. Should the vendor supply a style sheet? And when is invoicing expected?
  • Final Responsibilities and Scheduling Future Projects: In addition to stating the expected deliverables, the publisher should be clear on any other matters they might expect from the vendor. Is the vendor responsible for communicating with any additional parties, such as a printer or indexer? How long should the vendor maintain records of a project? And when will the vendor be ready for another project? Some freelance editors like to take a new project after they send the edited files to the author review; others prefer to wait until they have delivered final files to the publisher. And still others might be working with several publishers and need to coordinate more minutely. Packagers, on the other hand, might accept a new project at any time. But it is important to establish what works best in each relationship.

Conclusion

Clarity around matters of responsibility—for the publisher and for the vendor—is key to maintaining a healthy workflow and a fruitful relationship with editorial vendors. Defining these responsibilities provides the best way to alter or eliminate areas of friction in the workflow. The strength of a publisher’s relationship with its editorial vendors depends on the clarity of communication, and this in turn affects the quality of the final product and the experience of future readers. Publishing is at heart about communication, and that applies to workflows as much as to books.

MICHAEL HASKELL (he/him) is the publishing systems manager and a production editor at Columbia University Press. He has worked in scholarly publishing for more than twenty years and has been on the BISG Workflow Committee since 2019. You cannot find him on social media.

Read the posts in our Workflow blog series: 

BISG's Workflow Committee is all about getting things done, as easy and efficiently as possible. We create a standard definition of workflow for the industry, documenting best practices, and identifying and creating resources to improve existing approaches. Click here to learn more or to view the meeting schedule.

Categories

Most Recent Posts