Proofreaders often get confused by the term ‘read against copy’, so in this article I will try to explain what the term means.

There are two ways a proofreader can be asked to work: either by reading against a copy or by doing a direct (blind) reading.

When asked to read against a copy, the proofreader will receive the author’s original typescript (or a copy of it) with the editor’s corrections marked on it, and a set of proofs produced by the typesetter. The proofreader then compares the proofs with the edited typescript, checking both, word for word, line for line, to ensure that the author’s text (along with editorial amendments) has been reproduced faithfully, with no errors introduced at the stage. typesetting.

When performing a direct or blind reading, the proofreader will only receive proofs and not the typed original. In this case, the proofreader cannot know whether the typescript has been reproduced correctly along with the editor’s corrections. His role is simply to check the content of the tests, flagging any clear errors in spelling, punctuation, etc., that he can find.

When reading against a copy, most proofreaders scan a few words from the original typescript and then verify that they appear correctly in the proofs, with editorial corrections implemented correctly. Where there is a difference (if, for example, an apostrophe has been omitted), the corrector indicates it with the corresponding mark.

For each correction, a mark must be made in the text itself and another in the margin. This is done to ensure that when the typographer comes to incorporate the proofreader corrections, he doesn’t inadvertently skip any of them.

Errors made by the typographer should be highlighted with a colored pen, errors by the author/style editor with another. It is not about apportioning blame, but about deciding who should pay for the amends. The standard color coding system is shown below:

Red: used to show errors that the typographer has introduced into the text.

Blue: This is used to show errors made by the author and not caught by the copyeditor, and errors made by the copyeditor itself.

(NOTE: some publishers prefer black ink to blue; you will be informed of this when you start working for them.)

Green: This color is reserved for consultations or corrections by the printer himself.

The cost of ‘red’ corrections will be borne by the typesetter, while the cost of ‘blue’ corrections will be borne by the publisher (or, in severe cases, the author). With a direct reading, of course, you won’t know whose responsibility it is for the errors. In this case, it will mark all corrections in a single color (usually red).

As a freelance proofreader, you are likely to be offered more direct readings than counter-copy readings. This is because the modified typescript is normally sent back to the proofreader for verification by testing. The role of the proofreader is seen as more of a backup: a fresh set of eyes that can spot obvious errors than an editor jaded with familiarity. Although the corrected typescript could also be copied and sent to the proofreader, in practice publishers often find this too complicated. This may not be ideal, but it explains why proofreaders are more likely to be asked to read straight rather than read against the copy.