Contents Search 1. Introduction 2. Substantive Writing 3. Mechanics of Writing 3.1 Abbreviations and Names 3.2 Illustrations: Captions and Legends 3.3 Notes and Bibliographies 3.4 Numbers and Dates 3.5 Punctuation 3.6 Spelling and Special Terms   4. Editorial Process   5. Editorial Support   6. Collection Framework 6.1 About the Collection 6.2 Acknowledgments 6.3 Building the Digital Collection 6.4 Cataloging the Collection 6.5 Copyright and Other Restrictions 6.6 Related Resources 6.7 Scope and Content Note 6.8 Selected Bibliography 6.9 Special Presentations 6.10 Other Components   7. Learning Page   8. Today in History   9. Glossary

4. Editorial Process During the editorial process, collection framing documents (including annotations) are edited for correctness and clarity of language. The editors are primarily concerned with the style rather than the subject matter or visual design of the documents they review, although they may raise occasional questions about points of content or suggest changes in a document's organization to enhance its presentation in the online environment. In all cases, editing follows the standards established by the Chicago Manual of Style (14th ed.), modified by the NDLP house editing practices outlined in the guidelines for mechanics and substantive writing sections of this handbook. The Library of Congress has a long tradition of stylistic excellence in its print publications, and it is the responsibility of the editorial process to see that the Library's online texts meet those same high standards. Successful editing is a collaborative process that depends on continuous dialogue between writer and editor. It is vitally important, therefore, that the editorial team be involved in collection planning from a very early stage. These are the steps in the editorial process: (1) Initial consultation. As soon as the collection's framework has been planned, team/project leaders meet with members of the editorial team to tell them what the framework will be like and to inform them of the production schedule. (2) Document development. Framework documents are created by the collection production teams and/or the staff of the appropriate division, or by outside consultants. They may be edited by Division editors before being delivered to the NDLP editorial team. NDLP editors welcome information, questions, and discussion about framework materials at any point as they are being written: the more the editors know about a collection's special requirements before they receive the framework documents for editorial review, the more responsive they can be thereafter. (3) Submission of document files. All framework documents must be delivered to the NDLP editorial team at least two months before a collection's release date. Documents should be delivered on disk in WordPerfect or Word. Collection production teams should be sure that each document has been fact-checked and spell-checked before delivery. (4) Primary editorial review. Once a set of collection documents has been delivered to the editorial team, it is assigned to one of the editors for primary review. Editorial changes, which may concern spelling, punctuation, grammar, usage, style, organization, and (if necessary) content, are made in the electronic file. Occasionally, when extensive revision of a particular passage (or an entire document) is required, the editor simply makes a note of the problem and requests a rewrite and resubmission. The editor may also consult with the writer or collection project leader concerning problems or questions discovered during editorial review. Primary review is an extremely time-consuming process, requiring meticulous and multiple examinations of each document. The length of time it takes for any given collection depends on the length and quality of the documents submitted. (5) Secondary review. Before an edited document is returned to its project team, it is briefly reviewed by a second member of the editorial team to make certain that no errors or infelicities have gone unnoticed and that it accords with Chicago Manual and house style. Project leaders should note that the amount of text that goes into one single-spaced printed page requires approximately two hours of editorial time during the primary and secondary review processes together. (6) Return of document files. When all the documents for a collection have been edited, the editors make a copy of each edited document file and return the files in person to the collection team, often accompanied by a cover memorandum clarifying some of the editorial changes and providing additional comments or suggestions about the documents. (7) Follow-up. Writers and collection team members are encouraged to contact the editors with any questions or concerns they may have about the edited documents, no matter how seemingly trivial, at any time. In addition, the editor who has worked on a particular collection contacts the project leader a few days after each edited document set has been returned, to see if there are any questions and to schedule a follow-up meeting if desired. (8) Non-editorial staff review. If someone other than an editor finds an error in a document when it is in the test region or after it has gone online, he or she should email comments or questions to both the relevant project team leader and an NDLP editor, so that appropriate corrections can be made. (9) Collection updates. The editorial process applies to all framework materials, whether they are part of a collection's initial release or part of an update, and must take place whenever a document is revised. Project teams are requested to identify whatever is new in the collection updates. If revisions are minimal, however, it is sufficient to let the editors know as soon as the revised version is in the test region.         (Top) September 1999