Best Practice

Like the limit approaching zero, as an editor my mission is to be moving ever closer to the truth by having honest conversations about the world.

Editors and writers meet in the editorial process. Our working relationship is united in a common goal of producing high-quality work. Navigating revisions with aplomb demands implicit trust, skill, and judgement. We’ll build trust through agreeing on roles and expectations on the outset of a project. As a BELS editor, I have passed a standardized editing test, and I rely on the Board of Editors in the Life Sciences Code of Ethics.

What A Copy Editor Does

A copy editor contributes to a writer’s overall publication goals through manuscript editing: editing for clarity, internal consistency, and accuracy; editing for journal style; and checking and correcting grammar, spelling, and word usage.

Editors across all levels of the publishing process, from academic editors to referees to copy editors, balance the scales of high publication standards and publication pressures (publish or perish) by querying about unclear language and by correcting errors, among other crucial editorial tasks.

Accuracy

Accuracy is the substratum of a scholarly editorial process. It is best practice to correct errors, large and small. Editors check spelling and word usage against established dictionaries and thesauruses. Editors verify dates and numbers reported in the text.

Navigating bias is a human concern. Interested folks can refer to the following two resources about understanding bias and mitigating biases:

• University of Washington’s “Mitigating Biases” (while written for a scholarship review process, it has applicability to publication review; last accessed February 22, 2026)

• Harvard University’s Implicit Project (last accessed February 22, 2026)

Misattribution and plagiarism are other common writing pitfalls. To ensure accuracy, editors fact-check a manuscript and query the author to clarify any ambiguous information.

Attribution & Credit

Editors check references, citations, and online information. Editors query authors about information that has not been fully cited and referenced. 

Plagiarism

Providing background in a literature review by referencing and citing someone else’s work is standard practice. Authors typically word another person’s work in their own voice. Simply copying and pasting verbatim from another person’s work is not the best way to provide background information. Editors query authors about expected plagiarism. 

Technology

The publishing world has embraced and encouraged the use of technology century after century. As humans and language evolve, so does the tools with which humans communicate and tell their stories. Technology, however, is not a substitute for human expertise and judgement.

The New York Time’s sharp and unflinching guidance on AI, while intended for journalists, can make sense for many types of writers and editors: “Any use of A.I. must have human oversight and adhere to established journalistic standards and editing processes. We should be transparent with readers about our work and the tools used to produce it. If we make substantial use of generative A.I., we should disclose our process through clear labeling and explanations.”

The MLA-CCCC Joint Task Force on Writing and AI has developed working papers with recommendations, as well as resources and tools to tackle AI literacy.

COPE’s position on AI in publications can be found online, too.