Defining Macrostructural Editing Processes in the Australian Publishing Industry

Abstract Over the years, various terms have been used to describe macrostructural editing processes, including structural editing, developmental editing, substantive editing, comprehensive editing, and content editing. As with many key terms in the field of publishing studies, there is generally little consensus among scholars and educators on what each of these terms means and how, if at all, they differ from one another. As a result, definitions are often varied and inconsistently applied in scholarly texts and classrooms, which raises legitimate concerns as to whether students, upon entering the publishing industry, fully understand expectations and what exactly is being asked of them when they are tasked with editing a text. To date, little detailed study has explored how Australian industry professionals have come to understand and define macrostructural editing processes, but industry insight would undoubtably be a valuable addition to the theory taught in tertiary classrooms. In this study, I interview thirty Australian industry professionals from various fiction-publishing backgrounds to answer the following research questions: Which terms do Australian authors and editors of fiction use to describe macrostructural editing processes? Do they distinguish between these terms and processes, and if so, how? Responses suggest that Australian industry professionals decide which terms to use based on their familiarity with terms, the regional popularity of terms, and the stage at which editorial intervention occurs. Two terms, structural and developmental, are most common in the Australian publishing industry, and these terms describe unique editorial processes, for which I offer a working delineation.