CASE Standards
(PDF; 319K)
Introducing the Australian Standards for Editing Practice
These standards were prepared by the Standards Working Group on behalf of the members of the state societies of editors through their presidents, who together constitute the Council of Australian Societies of Editors (CASE).
The process has involved:
- initial discussions in each society and development of several drafts by the working group, which comprised delegates from each society
- consultation with members through a workshop in each state
- revision of the draft incorporating comments from the workshops and other feedback received by mail and email
- a vote, which gave all members the opportunity to accept or reject the result.
The term standard is used here to mean ‘anything taken by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model’ (Macquarie Dictionary). The standards do not aim to codify the quality of an editor’s work—how well a particular editorial task has been performed. Rather, they aim to set out the knowledge and skills needed for editing practice.
The standards depart from the traditional division of editing into structural or substantive editing, copy editing and proofreading; instead, they emphasise the place of the editor’s work in the context of the entire publishing process. The scope of the standards recognises that the practice of editing is not confined to working with a manuscript in isolation. For example, some of the capabilities of a project manager are needed in managing any job and dealing with the other people involved; and although editors may not need the design and layout abilities of a desktop publisher, they need to understand what a desktop publisher can do.
The resulting list may appear formidable, but in fact it describes knowledge that experienced editors routinely use in preparing material for publication in print or electronic media. Not all the standards will be relevant to every editing project or to every editing position; the application of each will depend on the nature and complexity of the job at hand.
The members of the state societies endorsed the document in March 2001 with a vote of 95 per cent in favour; this vote also recommended a regular review at least every three years. Ongoing review is important as the publishing industry, like all industries, is subject to technological and economic forces that are producing rapid changes. The review process also allows the document to continue to improve, taking into account points raised by members on their ballot papers, whether they voted ‘yes’ or ‘no’, and errors or omissions that become apparent as the standards are used.
The Standards Working Group acknowledges the assistance of the Editors’ Association of Canada, whose published standards gave us a starting point and whose experience helped us define the process.
We also acknowledge the members of the societies—the Australian editors—who contributed to the content of the standards from diverse points of view. The working group has now disbanded, but we commend these standards to you; we hope you find in them a useful and living document, which will continue to evolve into the future.
Standards Working Group
Kathie Stove (convenor), Mary Jane Bosch, Cathy Bruce, Amanda Curtin, Cathy Gray, Janet Mackenzie, Rhana Pike, Loma Snooks, Janette Whelan
April 2001
Last updated
25 August, 2003
Comments to Webmaster