Proofreaders often get puzzled by the phrase 'looking through versus copy', so in this article I will consider to clarify just what the time period indicates.
There are 2 ways in which a proofreader can be questioned to operate: either by studying in opposition to duplicate, or undertaking a straight (blind) examining.
When she is asked to study in opposition to duplicate, the proofreader might be delivered with the author's authentic typescript (or a copy of this) With all the editor's corrections marked on it, plus a list of proofs made by the typesetter. The proofreader then compares the proofs Along with the edited typescript, under-going both, word by word, line by line, in order that the creator's text (together with any editorial amendments) has been faithfully rendered, without faults introduced on the typesetting phase.
When executing a straight or blind looking at, the proofreader will probably be supplied with proofs only instead of the initial typescript. In this instance, the proofreader are unable to know no matter whether the original typescript has become appropriately reproduced along with the editor's corrections. Her purpose is just to check the proofs for material, marking up any distinct problems in spelling, punctuation, and so on, that she may well locate.
When studying versus duplicate, most proofreaders operate by scanning a handful of words and phrases of the first typescript, then checking to discover that these seem correctly to the proofs, with any editorial corrections effectively implemented. Wherever There exists a difference (if, for example, an apostrophe has become omitted), the proofreader suggests this with the appropriate mark.
For every correction, 1 mark have to be built within the text by itself and One more from the margin. This is completed to be able to make certain, when the typesetter comes to include the proofreader's corrections, he does not inadvertently skip more than any of them.
Glitches produced by the typesetter needs to be highlighted with 1 colour pen, blunders through the writer/duplicate editor with An additional. This is simply not so as to apportion blame, but to make your mind up who should pay for the amendments. The regular technique of shade coding is revealed down below:
Red: This really is used to display issues that have been introduced to the textual content because of the typesetter.
Blue: This really is utilized to show problems produced by the creator and missed via the copy editor, and problems produced by the copy editor herself.
(Be aware: some publishers want black ink to blue -- you'll be recommended of the when you start Doing work for them).
Environmentally friendly: This colour is reserved for that typesetter's own queries or corrections.
The price of 'pink' corrections will likely be borne with the typesetter, when that of 'blue' corrections will be met through the publisher (or, in significant conditions, the creator). With a straight studying, of course, you will not know whose responsibility any errors might be. In this case, you can mark up all corrections in only one korektura textu shade (normally crimson).
As being a freelance proofreader you are very likely to be made available far more straight readings than readings from duplicate. This is due to the amended typescript is Commonly returned to your copy editor for her to check against the proofs. The proofreader's job is regarded additional as delivering back again-up: a new set of eyes which can place obvious issues forgotten by an editor jaded by above-familiarity. Even though the amended typescript may be copied and sent to the proofreader at the same time, in exercise this is frequently felt by publishers for being an excessive amount of trouble. This might not be best, however it explains why proofreaders are more likely to be questioned to conduct a straight looking at in lieu of looking through towards copy.