Common Editing Mistakes in Academic Publishing: Lessons from BLE’s Desk

Every editor has that moment when a manuscript lands on their desk and their immediate thought is: “Oh, this is going to be interesting”. Sometimes that’s a polite way of saying “brace yourself”. 

And we don’t mean just grammar and punctuation errors. There will always be language mistakes. That’s just a given when you edit. Instead, we’re looking at some bigger picture issues. Things that have to do with structure and (as always) consistency in editing.

Just keep in mind that this is a working list and is in no way trying to be ‘complete’. We’ve compiled the common editing mistakes in academic publishing that grace our desks, so if you have anything to add, tell us. We like swapping editing war stories.

Table of Contents

    The Cost of Common Editing Mistakes

    Cost can mean two things: financial cost and credibility cost.

    Financial cost is pretty self-explanatory. It costs money to conduct and produce research, especially when the research gets published. But it costs even more when retractions, redactions, and really bad reviews are involved. Whether it’s the academic, the university, or the publisher, someone needs to foot that bill.

    But here, we’re more focused on the credibility cost – and how professional editing can help prevent it. Because while you think small errors might go unnoticed, they actually snowball. Typos, obviously, but also whether the front matter is in the correct order, the references are complete and accurate, and all the contributors’ names are spelt correctly.

    Many academic writers don’t realise these (and a ton of others) are real factors that affect academic publishing. 

    Worried yet? Don’t be. As General Li Shang sang confidently: “Let’s get down to business to defeat [common editing mistakes in academic publishing].”

    Ja, we know. Doesn’t have the same ring to it.

    Common Editing Mistakes in Academic Publishing

    As we’ve mentioned, this isn’t an exhaustive list. It’s more of a starting point. Every editor has a list like this, even if it’s just in their head. So, use it as a foundation for your own or simply add any occurrences that are missing.

    1. List of Abbreviations (and Acronyms)

    Let’s start with the one that probably fills us with the most trepidation. First of all, there’s a difference between abbreviations and acronyms:

      • An abbreviation is a shortened form of a word or phrase, such as Dr for Doctor or etc. for et cetera. It’s used to save space or make writing quicker without changing the meaning.
      • An acronym is a word formed from the first letters of other words and pronounced as a single term, such as NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). It creates a shorter, easier way to refer to a longer phrase.

    For added drama, avoid confusing either of these with initialisms. An initialism is a type of abbreviation formed from the first letters of a series of words, where each letter is pronounced separately, such as BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation).

    So, because acronyms and initialisms are abbreviations, the list should be titled ‘List of Abbreviations’ only. Not ‘Abbreviations and Acronyms’. This is easy enough to fix. The next hurdle is ensuring the list is correct, which entails:

      • checking that all the abbreviations actually appear in the manuscript;
      • checking that all the abbreviations in the manuscript actually appear in the list; and
      • ensuring the abbreviations and their explanations are correct.

    That last bullet point gets tricky because not all abbreviations are obvious. For example, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs is simply OCHA. Also, be careful not to change organisation names when editing for US English or UK English. The WHO stands for World Health Organization, not Organisation.

    Finally, academic editors must consider whether an abbreviation needs to be in the list at all. Abbreviations are supposed to enhance the reading experience, not clutter it. Therefore, well-known abbreviations like US and UK don’t have to be included. Abbreviations that pop up only once in the manuscript can also be crossed off.

    2. Inconsistent Footnotes

    The academic version of Pandora’s box. You think you’re just checking a reference at the bottom of the page, and suddenly you’re knee-deep in formatting chaos and contradictory citation styles.

    Footnotes are meant to guide readers to supporting sources or explanations. But when inconsistent, they do the opposite. Think missing full stops, random capitalisation, and inconsistent formatting between chapters. Sometimes, half the notes use ibid. while the rest spell out full citations, and occasionally, the same source appears three different ways (bonus points if the publication year changes each time).

    The most common culprits?

      • Copy-pasting from different sources. Each writer brings their own habits, and footnote style isn’t always something people consciously align.
      • Switching citation styles mid-manuscript. A chapter that starts in Chicago style and ends in Oxford is more common than you’d think.
      • Using reference manager exports without review. Software like EndNote or Zotero can create inconsistencies if the underlying data isn’t clean.

    When working with publishers or universities, editors can save themselves a world of pain by first confirming the preferred style (and sticking to it religiously). Then, check for consistency in:

      • punctuation (does each entry end with a full stop or not?);
      • author-date formatting (is it ‘Smith, 2020’ or ‘Smith (2020)’?); and
      • italics and quotation marks (book titles vs. article titles).

    Also, pay attention to footnote numbering. They love to go rogue during rewrites, especially when sections get moved around or merged. Always recheck numbering after major edits or before final submission.

    Finally, while editors might be tempted to skim the references because ‘it’s just formatting’, don’t. Footnotes are where credibility lives. A single inaccurate or inconsistent note can chip away at a manuscript’s professionalism faster than you can say “see note 42”.

    3. Incorrect Table and Figure Numbering

    Editors who have encountered this enough times have wondered (out loud or muttered under their breath), “Can this writer even count?”.

    Of course the writer can count, but human error happens. You might find instances where the numbering skips a digit (Table 1.2 is followed by Table 1.4), there’s duplication (Figure 2.3 is followed by another Figure 2.3), or there’s a complete mismatch (the figure itself is Figure 8.4 but the writer refers to Figure 14.1 in the text). 

    We’ve found that the latter often happens when academics rewrite their work into another format. For example, the writer’s original work was a thesis. That’s why the figure was Figure 14.1. But now, the work is chapter 8 in an academic edited collection. So, the numbering in the figure’s title is correct, but the text was taken as is from the original work.

    That’s why tables, figures, maps, illustrations, etc. always benefit from a last readthrough. The numbering must be consistent in the title, the text, AND the list of tables and figures (if the manuscript has one).

    4. Multiple Spellings of Author Names

    If there’s one thing that must always be correct, it’s author names. We believe it’s a matter of respect. A name carries identity and recognition, so if authors have a preference, whether cultural or personal, make sure it’s implemented. For example, the cedilla (ç) is often omitted because writers may not know the keyboard shortcut (it’s ALT 0231).

    This becomes particularly important for edited volumes and academic journal articles with multiple writers. Places where you possibly need to check name spellings include:

      • The table of contents
      • A chapter’s opening page
      • Editor and author biographies
      • The introduction and conclusion (volume or series editors may mention writers by name as they discuss the book’s contents)
      • The book’s cover (if that’s something your client requests)

    Also confirm whether writers use their middle names, only initials, or hyphenated surnames. As always, if you’re unsure, leave a comment to ask for confirmation.

    5. Different Versions of Chapter Titles

    Just like author names, chapter titles can have variations. These often appear in the table of contents, the chapter itself, and the introduction and conclusion.

    We’ve come across this mostly in edited collections. We put it down to communication and collaboration. The volume editor/s and contributors communicate via email mainly, so things sometimes fall off the table. Plus, between internal reviews and peer reviews, the chapters undergo multiple rewrites. Consequently, chapter titles in the introduction don’t get updated until the language editor points it out.

    An oversized blue eraser with the words 'I love mistakes' printed on it.

    How BLE Approaches These Pitfalls

    We don’t just edit for surface polish; we edit for credibility. Our process is designed to catch small mistakes before they turn into big problems (or awkward reviewer comments). Here’s how we tackle them:

    Being Aware

    Awareness has a duality. First, we look for these mistakes because we know they’re likely there. This kind of awareness comes through editing experience.

    Second, we’re aware that we don’t know everything. We continually strive to enhance our editing skills and knowledge through webinars, networking with fellow editors, and reading books on editing and freelancing.

    Systematic Proofreading

    We go line by line, checking for grammar, clarity, and adherence to the style guide. It’s not glamorous work, but it’s what keeps typos, tense shifts, and formatting gremlins from slipping through.

    Reference Cross-Checking

    Every in-text citation is matched against the reference list, and vice versa. If something doesn’t line up, we find it. Accuracy in references isn’t just about neatness; it’s about academic integrity.

    Journal Fit Verification

    Each journal has its quirks: house style, reference format, section structure. We make sure the manuscript actually fits the journal’s aims and guidelines.

    Perspective from Both Sides

    Because we’ve been on the publishing side too, we know what publishers, editors, and reviewers look for. That experience helps us pre-empt issues, not just correct them after the fact.

    Ultimately, our goal isn’t just to fix what’s wrong. We want to strengthen what’s there. Every academic manuscript we edit should read as clearly and confidently as the research behind it.

    A woman laying defeatedly with her head on her desk, surrounded by open books.

    Lessons Learned and Advice for Authors and Editors

    After years of academic editing, a few lessons come up so often they’ve practically earned their own citation. Here are some that top the list:

      • Read the submission guidelines properly. Every journal has its own preferences, and ignoring them is a surprisingly common reason for rejection. Fonts, headings, reference styles … they all matter more than you think.
      • Check your references twice (then once more for luck). Half-missing publication details, mismatched years, and phantom DOIs appear far too often. References are the backbone of academic credibility, so treat them that way.
      • Keep your argument clear and logical. Strong research can still fall flat if the structure doesn’t guide the reader. If a reviewer can’t follow your argument, they’re not going to fight to keep your paper.
      • Get a fresh pair of eyes. Even experienced researchers benefit from editorial review. Familiarity blinds you to small errors, clunky phrasing, or missing steps in reasoning. Editors are there to spot what you can’t.

    And one final note of solidarity: nothing tests an editor’s endurance quite like a manuscript that promises a ‘groundbreaking discovery’ in the abstract – only for that discovery to vanish somewhere between the results and discussion. We’ve seen a lot, sighed at most of it, and somehow still love the work.

    Spotting (and Stopping) Common Editing Mistakes in Academic Publishing

    Ultimately, editing academic work is about preserving the integrity of the research itself. Common editing mistakes in academic publishing often hide in the fine print: an unverified citation here, a mismatched name there, or a footnote that’s wandered off course. Catching these early saves time, reputation, and sometimes, entire publication cycles.

    Editors, in many ways, are the final line of defence between great research and public confusion. The job requires equal parts precision, curiosity, and humility – plus a willingness to recheck the same table number more times than you’d like to admit. But that’s what makes academic editing rewarding: when every detail aligns, the research shines exactly as it should.

    So whether you’re a writer polishing your first paper or an editor knee-deep in tracked changes, take comfort in knowing this: the small, unseen editing work you do behind the scenes makes all the difference. And if all else fails, remember that every editor has survived at least one formatting nightmare. You will too.

    Blue Leaf Team

    The Blue Leaf Editing team has over 15 years of combined editing, publishing, and book industry experience. We’re passionate about content and storytelling, and sharing our knowledge with others.