How to Edit a Monograph: A Guide for Academic Editors

Academic monograph editing is not for the faint of heart. It’s often long, more technical than you expect, and steeped in a specific field of study (that you might not always be interested in yourself). But it’s also deeply rewarding, especially when you get to help shape a manuscript into something that earns its place in the world of academic publishing. 

This is a bit of a nostalgia trip for us since we were academic publishers once upon a time. It also means we’ve tried to add some insider titbits throughout to give academic editors a different perspective. 

Ready? Let’s get on this rollercoaster because academic editing sure has its ups and downs.

Table of Contents

    First Things First: What Is a Monograph?

    A monograph is a single-subject academic book, typically written by one author (though co-authored monographs exist, not to be confused with academic edited volumes). It offers an in-depth exploration of a specific topic within a scholarly field and is usually aimed at fellow researchers, advanced students, or professionals in that discipline.

    It’s not the same as a thesis or dissertation. These are written to pass an academic qualification. A monograph is written for publication. Therefore, it must certainly demonstrate rigorous research but also original contribution, a coherent narrative, and publishable prose. And that’s where the editor comes in.

    Know the Academic Publishing Terrain Before You Start

    Alright, let’s get the lay of the land. We always find it helpful to understand the context we’re editing in: where did the first draft come from, what work has been done on it so far, what’s the end product supposed to look like, what’s it supposed to achieve?

    To answer, here’s a quick breakdown of the academic publishing process:

    Graph Academic Publishing Process

    Manuscript Submission:

    The author submits their manuscript for publication. This doesn’t have to be the completed manuscript. Most publishers have a proposal form that accompanies the submission. It details the proposed title, length, audience, and other information the publisher requires to review the work for possible addition to their publishing list. 

    Internal Review:

    Publishers have some sort of group or committee that reviews proposals. Small presses may only have one person, while others discuss it within the publishing or editorial team. If the proposal is accepted, it goes for peer review.

    Peer Review:

    The publisher finds 2-3 experts in the relevant field to review the book. Best practice is to have a double-blind peer review. This means the manuscript is anonymised before going to reviewers, and in turn, peer reviewer reports are anonymised before going to the author. Peer reviewers focus on the quality of the content, i.e., is it up to date, is it missing important references or perspectives, are the arguments sound, does it contribute to the field?

    Editing:

    This is you. You are here📍We’ll get into the details soon. Basically, the author makes (or doesn’t) changes according to the peer reviewers’ suggestions. Once the peer reviewer signs off, the manuscript goes for editing. There are typically two editing rounds: your first edit and then reviewing the changes the author implemented based on the first edit.

    Typesetting:

    Once edited, the manuscript is typeset and the cover is designed. The author and publisher proofread PDFs until both are happy (or until the publisher makes executive decisions), and the first printed proofs are produced. 

    Proofing:

    Seeing something on screen and in print isn’t the same. So, at least two rounds of proofing happen to fix any formatting and last-minute text issues.

    Publishing:

    Publication day! Congratulations all around.

    Now we know where we are and where we’re going. Time to start editing.

    A Breakdown of Academic Manuscript Editing

    In most cases, publishers request language editing or copyediting services. The “developmental editing” has already happened via the peer reviewer. A good publisher will give you a mixture of these documents to help you with your task:

      • An editing brief: This details exactly what the publisher expects from you. It gives background on the project and stipulates what you can and can’t do.
      • Their style guide: Every publisher has their way of doing things. The style guide should answer any questions from referencing rules to language preferences.
      • A style sheet: You can record your editorial choices here. It helps the author to navigate your feedback. Even if you don’t get one, you should still draw it up.
      • A contract: The details of the contract depend on the setup. Some publishers prefer drawing up contracts for every project, and others might have only one if you edit for them regularly. Regardless, ensure the agreed-upon expectations, responsibilities, deadlines, payment, and consequences are clearly stated.

    Once all of this is in place, there are three main areas that academic monograph editing focuses on:

    1. Language

    We’ll be the first to admit that working with academic language is tricky. Jargon in particular can become the bane of your existence, especially if it’s unfamiliar. Constantly stopping to look up terminology and uses absolutely breaks editing flow. And passive voice? It’s everywhere. 

    So, language editing is more than just checking for typos and missing punctuation. Bigger issues you need to look at include:

    Introducing Plain Language

    Academic language inherently comes with formality. No one will take a scholarly publication seriously if it’s written like an Instagram post. However, a good editor can tell when an author unnecessarily uses big words and long sentences. Depending on the context, you can make changes or leave suggestions in a comment or email.

    For example:

    In order to be able to adequately assess the effectiveness of the intervention, it is necessary to first conduct a comprehensive review of the existing literature.

    Can become

    To assess the effectiveness of the intervention, a comprehensive review of the existing literature is needed.

    Still passive voice, which we’re not crazy about, but an improvement nonetheless. Just don’t step into the trap of overediting. You don’t have to scrutinise each line to see how to cut or simplify it. Remember, monographs are aimed at other scholars. There’s an assumed minimum level of knowledge about the topic, so certain jargon can remain. Plus, every field of study has its nuances. Some things are just done a certain way, so you don’t have to revolutionise it.

    Moral: Do what’s best for the content. Introduce plain language where the text’s meaning is obscured, leave queries where you’re unsure, and suggest changes you think the author/publisher may find useful.

    Keeping the Author’s Voice

    Yes, even in academic content, the author has a voice. And as the editor, you shouldn’t impose on this. Admittedly, not all academics are natural writers, so some manuscripts need more help than others. This is where you’ll confront one of the biggest editor dilemmas: editing vs rewriting. It’s a very fine line. You might think you’re editing, but really, you’re erasing the author’s words and replacing them with yours.

    That’s not an editor’s place. We enhance existing words. 

    This becomes dangerous when dealing with medical and legal content. You might (unknowingly) change the text’s meaning. As a result, readers may come to wrong conclusions, follow incorrect instructions, or end up in legal trouble.

    Moral: Don’t let your red pen become your Elder Wand.

    2. Consistency

    Consistency in editing is non-negotiable. You start by consulting the publisher’s style guide. It should settle debates like:

      • Language use: UK or US English spelling? Or South African? Australian?
      • Oxford comma: Fans or enemies?
      • Capitalisation: Title or sentence case?
      • Quotation marks: Single, double or double, single? Punctuation inside or outside?
      • Numbers: How should you approach large numbers, dates, currencies, time, and measurements?
      • Abbreviations: Are they allowed? Should there be a list at the start of the text?
      • Figures and tables: How does the numbering work? Should titles be at the top or bottom?
      • Referencing: What method should you follow? Does the publisher have practices specific to them?

    This list isn’t close to exhaustive. You’ll most likely find things the style guide doesn’t discuss and applies to this manuscript only. That’s when you need to make an editorial choice and record it in the style sheet. 

    Consistency also applies to formatting. This is a big part of editing a thesis, where the editor must create and apply document styles. But remember, you’re editing for a publisher now. There’s a whole typesetting stage to follow with a professional book designer. Just complete the formatting requests (if any) in the briefing document. 

    Moral: Don’t underestimate this time-consuming activity! If we still edited on paper by hand, flipping pages would become a permanent background noise in your life.

    3. References

    As mentioned, the style guide should contain referencing rules. This can be as straightforward as “Follow APA referencing conventions” or more detailed, where each possible case is explained (with an example). APA and Chicago are the easiest to follow because the rules are clear. There’s the right way or no way. Harvard is a bit more troublesome because there isn’t really a set way. There’s a lot of room for interpretation. You’ll have to be extra vigilant to ensure the references are consistent. 

    Also, look out for references in footnotes and endnotes. Footnotes tend to list the reference in full the first time and then subsequently shorten it. You must also cross-reference the footnote/endnote with its text marker to ensure they match.

    In addition:

      • Understand the difference between ‘reference list’ and ‘bibliography’ so you apply it correctly.
      • Check that source lists are alphabetical, even when grouped under subheadings like ‘books’ and ‘journal articles’.
      • Referencing software is useful for bulk jobs, but you must check it afterwards.
      • If you need to add DOIs to references, don’t search for them individually. Copy and paste the whole list into Simple Text Query to check in one go.

    It’s a lot, right? That’s why some editors specialise in editing referencing and others don’t do it at all. Many charge it as a separate service or even per reference. In our case, it’s a bit of a guilty pleasure. There’s just something about fixing references that gets the dopamine going.

    Final Checks Before Returning the Manuscript to the Publisher

    You’ve done it. You’ve edited the whole manuscript. Honestly, “Eye of the Tiger” should be associated with you, not Rocky. However, there are final checks to see through before you can celebrate. Editors are only human, after all. We also make mistakes and our eyes play tricks on us.  

    We follow this routine before submitting edited manuscripts to publishers:

    General Formatting and Accuracy

    □ Scroll through the document in Final view with spellcheck on

    □ Read and check all comments left in the text

    □ Double-check the title page and any preliminary wording for accuracy

    □ Confirm that page numbers run correctly throughout

    □ Use Word’s Find function to track down any double spaces

    □ Ensure consistent spelling of key terms and stick to either UK or US English throughout

    □ Make sure the past tense is used correctly when referring to studies (common in research monographs)

    □ Check capitalisation of headings like “Chapter 1”, “Chapter 2”, etc. when mentioned in the text

    □ Verify that tables and figures are numbered correctly and in the right places

    □ Ensure titles for tables and figures are properly positioned

    □ Review heading levels to make sure they follow a clear, logical order

    □ Confirm in-text references follow the same style (for example, “Smith 2025:34” vs “Smith, 2025:34”)

    Reference List

    □ Make sure the heading “References” or “Bibliography” isn’t numbered

    □ Check entries are listed alphabetically

    □ Standardise punctuation throughout

    □ Keep capitalisation consistent for titles and author names

    □ Add access dates for web references where needed

    Want to Keep This Checklist On-hand?

    Download our PDF for easy reference

    Download Now

    These details might seem small, but they play a big role in making the manuscript look professional and publication-ready. It ensures you’ve done your part in the publishing process well, so the manuscript can go to the next step on time.

    Communicating with the Publisher

    Many editors like working in isolation. They get their brief, disappear for a few days or weeks, and quietly submit their work. This may be fine in some cases, but because you’re editing for a publisher, you’re part of a process. And if you don’t communicate, you can derail it.

    This means informing the publisher of big issues that can affect the whole publication and asking about smaller things you’re uncertain about. For example, we’ve asked about technicalities like figure numbering. Do they prefer the current system (Figure 1, Figure 2, etc.) or should we overhaul the whole thing to Figure 1.1, Figure 2.3, etc.? In other cases, our concerns were more substantial like possible libel and plagiarism.

    Publishers want to know editors’ concerns. They don’t have the luxury of working as in-depth with text as editors. They rely on us for accurate feedback. So, even if your concerns turn out to be nothing or are easily resolved, at least you pointed them out.

    So, what’s the best way to communicate with publishers? We recommend:

      • Call if you need immediate feedback, especially if the publisher takes 1-2 days to reply on average. Just make sure to chase it up with an email so you have a paper trail.
    •  
      • Email is our go-to. We like including examples where possible so the publisher knows exactly what we’re referring to. We can then check their replies or instructions anytime we need to.
    •  
      • Include big-picture feedback either in a separate report or the email’s body when returning the manuscript. We like clarifying certain decisions, recommending suggestions, and even commenting on the author’s strengths.

    Tips for Freelance Academic Editors

    Academic monograph editing isn’t for everyone. And even less so when you’re a freelance editor who needs to juggle other projects, invoices, and marketing. These are some practical tips we’ve picked up along the way:

    Read the brief like it’s gospel:

    It might seem obvious, but seriously. Read the brief. Then read it again. Academic publishers vary in how much guidance they give, but when they do provide details, it’s because it matters.

    Manage your time:

    Monographs are long. Really long. So be realistic about how long it will take, and pace yourself. Break the manuscript into chunks, set micro-deadlines, and build in buffer time for the unexpected. Because there will be something unexpected. There always is.

    Get comfortable with subject matter you don’t understand:

    You’re not expected to be an expert in every field, but you need to make sense of the prose. When in doubt, use comments to ask the author for clarification, flag ambiguities, or note where meaning may be obscured.

    Build a good relationship with the publisher:

    Even if you never meet face to face, publishers remember the editors who are reliable, professional, and easy to work with. Be communicative, meet deadlines, follow their processes, and don’t ghost them after the delivery. 

    Make peace with the fact that you won’t catch everything:

    You’re thorough. You’re sharp. But a 100,000-word manuscript means that something will inevitably slip through. That’s what proofreading is for. Do your best, double-check the major things, and accept that perfection isn’t the goal – publication readiness is.

    Know what’s in scope (and what isn’t):

    If the manuscript is a bit of a mess, know when to stop and ask the publisher: Is this within the scope of the work agreed? 

    Price your work fairly:

    Academic editing is skilled labour. Factor in the word count, the subject matter’s technicality, the manuscript’s state, referencing requirements, and the turnaround time. Be transparent in your quote, and don’t be afraid to say no if the rate doesn’t match the brief.

    Finding Fulfilment in Academic Monograph Editing

    Monographs are the beating heart of many academic disciplines. Editing them is a privilege and a responsibility. There’s a quiet pride in refining complex ideas without overshadowing them, and in helping an author’s research on its way to print.

    It’s not always easy. Deadlines creep, footnotes multiply, and your dictionary gets more action than your social life, but if you enjoy precision, nuance, and the odd intellectual puzzle, it’s a rewarding niche.

    So, maybe you’re knee-deep in references or wondering if you can face another 100,000 words on late medieval historiography, just remember: your work matters. 

    And that’s worth a good cup of tea. Or three.

    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.