Give your manuscript the kind of editing it needs.

Share the word count, genre, intended audience, and a representative excerpt. A review of the material helps establish whether the requested service will address the main issues. It also helps identify tasks requiring separate quotation, such as rewriting, citation verification, indexing, or specialist review.

Your proposal specifies the editing level, file format, scope of review, revision or query stage, and delivery schedule. If a style sheet or editorial report is included, it should be named explicitly.

Editorial changes should help readers understand the book while respecting its intended character. We use queries where a decision requires your judgment rather than silently changing the meaning of a passage.

Editing is a sequence of different decisions. A manuscript may need structural work before sentence-level polishing, or it may be ready for a focused final review. Sending the draft for an initial assessment helps identify the right level rather than paying for the wrong intervention.

Before discussing a schedule or a quote, describe the intended reader, what already exists and what you want to be different at the end. That short explanation helps separate the central task from work that may be useful later. A relevant excerpt, outline or file can make the conversation more concrete than a broad description alone.

Consider structure, language and production readiness separately. Developmental editing asks whether the book works as a whole. Line editing considers how the prose works. Copy editing addresses consistency and correctness. Proofreading checks a near-final version.

Record those decisions in a brief that can be revisited. Include examples of the direction you prefer and explain why they are relevant. If several people will review the project, agree who consolidates their comments and who makes the final decision. Conflicting instructions are easier to resolve before a full draft or design is produced.

• The working title, subject and intended audience.
• The current version of the material and its approximate size.
• The result you want this stage to produce.
• Relevant references, examples and any established style preferences.
• A deadline, if one exists, and the reason behind it.
• The person responsible for approvals and consolidated feedback.

Explain any constraints early. These may include material that must remain unchanged, documents still being gathered, another contributor’s schedule or a planned release window. A proposal is more useful when it reflects those dependencies instead of assuming that every input is ready on day one.

The exact handover should be listed in the written scope. For this area, useful items to discuss include:

• A recommended editing scope.
• An editorial letter where agreed.
• Tracked changes and comments.
• A revised manuscript and style notes.

Confirm the file format, number of versions and whether editable working files are included. Ask what supporting notes accompany the main deliverable and how unresolved questions are recorded. An initial sample, an in-progress draft and a final approved file are different milestones; each should have a clear purpose.

1. Understand the manuscript. Review the material and identify what is ready, what is missing and which decisions affect the next stage. Confirm the intended audience and the specific result before committing to a detailed approach.

2. Agree the intervention. Put the proposed work into a clear sequence. Identify the first approval point, the material needed from the author and the deliverables for that stage. Resolve questions that could otherwise affect the whole project.

3. Edit and query. Carry out the agreed work in a manageable version. Share questions while they are still useful, and keep comments attached to the relevant passage, page or asset. Use the brief to judge changes consistently.

4. Resolve and consolidate. Consolidate the agreed decisions and check the final version against the scope. Record any remaining tasks, distinguish approved files from earlier drafts and explain what the next contributor or platform will need.

Read the editorial letter before responding to individual changes. Group questions by issue so that a recurring point can be discussed once. Keep one master manuscript and avoid sending parallel versions with untracked changes. Author decisions are easier to manage in a controlled file.

Use one consolidated response for each agreed review round. Quote the passage, identify the page or name the file so the issue can be located. Explain the reason for a requested change where it affects the direction. Keep corrections, questions and new requests distinct; this makes it easier to understand which changes fit the original brief.

The size of the material is only one factor. Complexity, readiness, the number of contributors and the amount of new work can all affect the scope. A short but technically complicated project may need more preparation than a longer straightforward one.

A schedule should also account for your review time. If essential material arrives late, or if the direction changes after approval, subsequent milestones may need adjustment. Ask how those changes will be documented before work begins. The project proposal should identify service fees and separately charged expenses rather than leaving them implicit.

An editing pass does not automatically include new chapter writing, research, permissions clearance or factual verification. Confirm whether follow-up questions, a second pass and review of author revisions are included.

Before commissioning, ask what happens if further work becomes necessary. A useful change process describes the additional task, its effect on cost and timing, and the approval needed to proceed. This protects the purpose of the current stage while allowing the project to develop when there is a good reason.

You do not need a polished presentation to explain your project. A working title, a paragraph about the book, the current word count if known and an honest description of the sticking point are enough to begin. If you already have a proposal from another provider, compare the defined tasks rather than assuming similar labels mean identical work.

Bring your priorities in order. Tell us what must be resolved now, what can wait and which decisions you want help making. The aim of the first conversation is a relevant next step and a clear understanding of the work—not a promise about outcomes no provider can control.