Best Practices

Much like a limit approaching zero, my mission as an editor is to always be moving closer to the truth and having honest conversations about the world.

The editorial process involves a working relationship between editors and writers who share the common goal of producing high-quality work. Unsurprisingly, navigating revisions in tandem with aplomb requires implicit trust. Editors and writers can build trust through agreeing on roles and expectations on the outset of a project.

As a BELS editor, I am bound to the Board of Editors in the Life Sciences Code of Ethics. To ensure transparency in publishing practices, the following editorial best practices speak to copy editor contributions during editing.

What A Copy Editor Does

Copy editors contribute to 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, play important roles in balancing the scales of high publication standards and publication pressures by querying about unclear language or highlighting potential bias, among other important editorial tasks.

As a writer and editor, I have been on both sides of sides of the editorial relationship. As a writer, I have had editors pore over my work and provide feedback. As an editor, I am responsible for editing other people’s work. I understand that writing requires courage, and that being willing to share writing with others and accept feedback requires humility.

Accuracy

Accuracy makes up 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 can be common writing pitfalls, which will be discussed in turn. To ensure accuracy, editors fact-check a manuscript to clarify all 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 are expected to 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, makes 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.”

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