I once saw a friend’s manuscript draft after the first round of editing from her mentor. The mentor had a very particular writing style, so I wasn’t surprised when a page appeared heavily rewritten—words swapped for synonyms, sentences rearranged.

What caught my attention, though, was a note in the margin: “Delete this entire section.” It was darkly humorous to realize how much effort had gone into editing details that ultimately didn’t matter, especially from a mentor with limited time.

While this example was extreme, I’ve noticed similar inefficiencies in nearly every paper I’ve worked on. Eventually, I found myself making the same mistakes and realized it was time to develop a structured workflow to streamline manuscript editing. I adapted a process inspired by fiction editors in the publishing industry, with modifications to suit academic writing.

This workflow has helped me focus on the most important aspects of a paper, saving time and energy, and I believe it can benefit anyone looking to edit more efficiently.

The Three Phases of Effective Manuscript Editing

1. Research Review

This phase focuses on evaluating the research itself. It involves checking whether the literature has been interpreted correctly, whether the chosen methods suit the research questions, whether the methods were applied correctly and generated clear results, and whether the conclusions drawn are valid. The guiding question here is: “Do the data in the paper support the title?”

2. Structural Editing

This phase addresses the narrative and flow of the manuscript. Key considerations include whether additional background is needed, whether certain background or discussion sections could be removed, and whether the data are presented in the most logical sequence for readers. Structural editing also takes into account any journal-imposed length limitations and provides recommendations accordingly.

3. Line Editing

At this stage, the focus is on phrasing, paragraph transitions, grammar, and polishing the text. References are finalized, citations are added for general statements, and all publication requirements—such as affiliations, funding sources, and acknowledgements—are verified.

Why Divide the Editing into Phases?

The main reason for separating these phases is to minimize disruptiveness. While all three phases are equally important, they are ordered according to how disruptive changes at each stage could be to other aspects of the manuscript. Making structural or line edits before addressing major scientific issues can lead to wasted effort if sections are later removed or fundamentally rewritten.

Additionally, starting with line edits may obscure larger problems in the research or manuscript structure. By tackling the manuscript in phases, you ensure that fundamental issues are addressed first, preventing the misconception that minor edits alone are sufficient.

My guiding principle is simple: “listen to the authors.”

Often, authors provide clear cues about what kind of editing they need, though colleagues may overlook them. Some authors have specific questions aligned with the editing phases outlined earlier, while others hint at their needs with statements like, “This is my first draft,” or “We plan to submit next week.” When authors don’t volunteer this information, a few targeted questions usually reveal the stage they’d like you to focus on.

However, when the author’s guidance is unclear, I start at the beginning— focusing on the research phase. I resist the temptation to line edit while reading, prioritizing the content over phrasing. Once I am confident that the research is solid and complete, I move on to structural editing, reviewing the manuscript’s organization and flow. Only after these two phases are addressed do I proceed to line edits.

This approach may seem slower initially, but if the research and structure are sound, line editing becomes much faster and more efficient.

If I encounter major issues during the research or structural phases, I pause and communicate these to the author, explicitly noting that I have not performed line edits. This not only saves time but helps the author focus on substantive issues rather than getting lost in minor corrections.

Using this phased approach, I’ve significantly reduced the time spent editing manuscripts while maintaining thoroughness. By postponing line edits, I can provide more meaningful feedback and offer deeper insights into the manuscript’s overall quality.