If you’ve never worked with an editor before, you may have some idea of what editorial feedback looks like: comments in the margins, suggested changes, questions, and perhaps a manuscript that looks like it has been attacked by a very enthusiastic highlighter.
But what should you actually expect from that feedback?
Editorial feedback should give you another perspective on your manuscript, help you identify what may not be working, and give you information you can use to make revision decisions.
It should also help you understand why your editor is raising a particular concern.
Your Editor Should Explain What They’re Seeing
A useful editorial comment should do more than point out that something needs to change. You should have enough information to understand why the editor is raising the issue.
Maybe the meaning isn’t clear.
Maybe information comes too late.
Maybe you’ve already explained the same point somewhere else.
Maybe a transition doesn’t give the reader enough information to move comfortably into the next section.
Or maybe the sentence makes perfect sense to you because you already know what you mean, but an editor is wondering whether it’ll be as clear to someone encountering the material for the first time.
The reason matters.
I don’t want an author thinking, I guess I have to change it because my editor said so.
I’d rather have you thinking, Oh. I see what she’s noticing. Now I can decide what I want to do about it.
That’s the difference between an editor making decisions for you and an editor giving you useful information to work with.
Expect Questions, Not Just Corrections
Not every editorial comment needs to be a correction.
Some of the most useful comments I make are questions:
- What do you want the reader to understand here?
- Is this information needed at this point?
- Could this section be moved?
- What is the most important point you want the reader to take away?
- Will a young reader understand this word or concept?
- Will a reader be able to follow this instruction?
- Does the sequence of these recipes make sense?
Questions can be especially useful because they put the decision back where it belongs—with the author.
I’m bringing my experience as an editor and my perspective as a reader. You’re bringing your knowledge of your subject, your goals for the book, and your understanding of what you’re trying to accomplish.
Sometimes my question will lead you to a change you hadn’t considered.
Sometimes you’ll look at the question and realize that what you’ve written is exactly what you intended.
Both are useful outcomes.
The point isn’t for me to make every decision for you. It’s to give you something to consider.
Look for Patterns, Not Just Individual Comments
One of the easiest mistakes to make when you receive a manuscript full of comments is to treat every comment as a separate problem.
You don’t necessarily need to.
Several comments may be pointing to the same underlying issue.
For example, you may see comments in several places asking for more information. The answer may not be to add another sentence every time.
The larger problem might be that the manuscript needs a clearer organizational structure.
Or you may see several questions about pacing. That doesn’t necessarily mean you need to rewrite every slow paragraph individually. The problem may be concentrated in one section.
Instead of asking:
How do I fix this comment?
Try asking:
What is this group of comments telling me about the manuscript?
If you’re seeing similar concerns in several places, that’s worth paying attention to.
As I discussed in What Happens After a Manuscript Evaluation?, feedback becomes more useful when you look for patterns and priorities rather than trying to tackle every comment individually.
Decide What to Work on First
You may have dozens of comments, but they aren’t necessarily equally important.
Some changes may affect the entire manuscript. Others may be relatively minor. Some may become unnecessary once you’ve addressed a larger issue.
Before you start revising, ask:
- What’s already working?
- What needs attention first?
- Which concerns are connected?
- What can wait?
- Could one change solve several smaller problems?
For example, if the organization of a book isn’t working, you don’t want to spend hours polishing individual sentences in a section that may eventually move or disappear.
Address larger issues before smaller ones.
This is also why it’s important to understand where your manuscript is in the writing process. In What Are the Stages of a Manuscript?, I explain the difference between drafting, revision, readiness for feedback, and editing.
Knowing what stage you’re in can help you understand what kind of feedback will actually be useful.
The Feedback Should Match the Editorial Service
Not every author needs the same kind of feedback.
A manuscript evaluation looks at the bigger picture: strengths, weaknesses, structure, clarity, reader experience, and revision priorities.
Developmental editing is more hands-on and may involve substantial in-text guidance, restructuring, and work on the manuscript itself.
Copyediting focuses on clarity, consistency, grammar, punctuation, usage, and sentence-level issues.
Proofreading comes later, after the manuscript has been revised and edited, when the focus is on catching remaining errors and formatting problems.
The feedback you receive should make sense for the service you’re paying for and the stage your manuscript is in.
If you’re expecting proofreading and instead receive pages of suggestions about restructuring your book, something has gone wrong.
Likewise, if you’re seeking a manuscript evaluation because you aren’t sure what still needs work, you shouldn’t expect the focus to be limited to commas and spelling.
Knowing what kind of feedback you need is part of knowing what kind of editorial help to seek.
If you’re unsure about the difference between a manuscript evaluation and developmental editing, Manuscript Evaluation vs. Developmental Editing: What Authors Need to Know can help clarify what each service is designed to do.
Your Voice Should Still Sound Like You
This is one of the most important things I want authors to understand about editing.
I don’t want to turn your manuscript into something that sounds like I wrote it.
When I’m editing, I’m not asking:
How would I write this?
I’m asking:
- Is this clear?
- Is the meaning coming through?
- Does this accomplish what the author wants it to accomplish?
- Could this be stronger or more effective for the intended reader?
Those are different questions.
Editors have preferences. I certainly have my editorial pet peeves.
But a personal preference isn’t automatically an editorial problem.
A suggestion should have a reason behind it.
The goal isn’t to make every manuscript sound the same. It’s to help each author communicate what they want to communicate as clearly and effectively as possible.
That also means keeping the intended reader in mind. As I discussed in Why Understanding Your Audience Is the Key to Stronger Revision, authors can lose perspective during revision because they become so familiar with their own material.
An editor’s outside perspective can help bring that reader back into the conversation.
Editorial Feedback Is a Conversation
The best editorial relationships are collaborative.
That doesn’t mean we’ll agree about everything.
It means we’re looking at the same manuscript from different positions.
I bring editorial experience and the perspective of a reader.
You bring the vision for the book, your knowledge of the subject, and your understanding of what you’re trying to accomplish.
Sometimes I’ll notice something you didn’t.
Sometimes you’ll explain something that changes how I understand a passage.
Sometimes we’ll disagree.
That’s not necessarily a problem.
It can be part of doing good editorial work.
The goal isn’t agreement on every comment. The goal is better-informed decisions about the manuscript.
What Should You Walk Away With?
When you finish reviewing editorial feedback, you may have a lot of changes to make.
But I don’t want a long list of corrections to be the thing you take away.
I want you to have a clearer understanding of:
- what’s working
- what may be confusing or slowing the reader down
- what needs strengthening
- which issues are most important
- what questions you still need to answer
- what you want to do next
You may accept some suggestions.
You may reject others.
You may come up with a completely different solution to a problem your editor identified.
That’s okay.
The goal of editorial feedback isn’t for an editor to make every decision for you. It’s to give you enough information and perspective to make better decisions about your own book.
Your book should still be yours when we’re finished.
It should simply be a stronger, clearer version of the book you were trying to write in the first place.
Frequently Asked Questions About Editorial Feedback
Do I Have to Accept Every Suggestion From My Editor?
No. Editorial feedback gives you information and another perspective. You should understand the reason for a suggestion and then decide whether it serves your book.
What If I Disagree With My Editor?
That’s okay. A professional editor should be able to explain the reasoning behind a recommendation without expecting you to automatically accept it. You may have information, goals, or intentions your editor doesn’t know about.
Why Does My Editor Ask So Many Questions?
Questions help an editor understand what you’re trying to accomplish and identify places where a reader might have a different experience. A question doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve done something wrong.
What If I Feel Overwhelmed by the Feedback?
Don’t try to fix everything at once. Look for patterns and priorities first. Several comments may point to one larger issue, and addressing that issue may resolve many smaller concerns.
Should Editorial Feedback Change My Voice?
It shouldn’t. Good editing should help you communicate more clearly and effectively while preserving the qualities that make the manuscript yours.
What’s the Difference Between Editorial Feedback and Proofreading?
Editorial feedback can address larger questions of organization, clarity, reader experience, and effectiveness, depending on the service. Proofreading is a later-stage review focused primarily on remaining errors and formatting.
If you’re unsure which type of feedback your manuscript needs, an editor can help you determine the appropriate next step.
About the Author
Cassie Armstrong is the founder and owner of MorningStar Editing LLC. She works with authors of children’s books, cookbooks, and craft and how-to books, providing manuscript evaluations, coaching, copyediting, and proofreading.
Her approach focuses on clarity, organization, reader experience, and preserving the author’s voice. She helps authors understand what’s working in their manuscripts, what needs strengthening, and what to do next so they can revise with confidence and direction.