By Divya Jyoti Munjal
When people think about copyediting, they often imagine an editor making changes throughout a manuscript. Pages filled with tracked changes can give the impression that substantial editorial work has been done.
In reality, good copyediting is not measured by the number of edits. It is measured by the quality of the decisions behind those edits.
One pattern I have noticed while reviewing copyedited manuscripts is that some editors equate editing with rewriting. If a sentence can be expressed differently, they feel inclined to change it. The motivation is usually positive. They want to improve the manuscript or demonstrate the value of their work. However, more editing does not always result in better editing.
Recently, someone commented on one of my posts that they make more edits so the author or client can see that the manuscript has been thoroughly edited. I appreciated the honesty because it reflects a concern that many editors have but rarely discuss openly.
The concern is understandable. Good copyediting is often invisible. Unlike designing a cover or creating a layout, its value is not always obvious at first glance. As a result, some editors worry that a manuscript with fewer tracked changes may give the impression that very little work was done.
The purpose of copyediting, however, is not to make the work look substantial. It is to improve the manuscript where improvement is genuinely needed.
If a sentence is already clear, grammatically correct, consistent with the style sheet, and works well in the context of the manuscript, rewriting it simply because another wording sounds better to the editor does not necessarily improve the manuscript. It simply makes the sentence different.
This does not mean editors should hesitate to make changes. There are many situations where editing is essential. A journal style sheet may require a particular form of expression. A publisher’s guidelines may specify preferred usage. A manuscript may contain inconsistencies, grammatical errors, ambiguous wording, or factual inaccuracies that need careful attention. In these situations, the purpose of the edit is clear.
The more difficult situations are those where no rule requires a change. The sentence already communicates the author’s message effectively, fits the tone of the manuscript, and is unlikely to confuse the reader. The only reason to rewrite it is that the editor prefers a different way of expressing the same idea. This is where editorial judgment matters most.
Good copyediting is not about rewriting every sentence that could be rewritten. It is about recognizing which sentences genuinely need attention and which should remain exactly as they are. That distinction protects the author’s voice while ensuring that every edit serves a meaningful purpose.
Experienced copy editors understand that their responsibility is not to leave their signature on every page. Their responsibility is to help the manuscript communicate more clearly, more accurately, and more consistently. If a sentence is already achieving that objective, changing it may add little value and may even introduce errors.
The hardest edit is often the one you decide not to make. That decision requires confidence. It means trusting your editorial judgment rather than feeling the need to justify your work through visible changes. Learning when to leave a sentence untouched is just as important as learning how to edit it. If you would like to explore editorial judgment in greater depth, Building the Copy Editor’s Mindset discusses this and many other decision-making skills that shape effective copyediting.