Does Freelancing Pay?

In addition to my duties as a manuscript editor, I pick up freelance editing assignments when I can. At JAMA Network, I am part of a team of many talented editors and proofreaders who collaborate throughout the editing process, but when freelancing, I am often the only line of defense between clients and catastrophe.

Writing and editing, including in the medical sphere, are largely independent work and conducive to freelancing. But they can also be lonely jobs. Who do you bounce ideas off of when you have a tricky question? Where’s IT when your internet goes down? And how do you know if you are charging your clients enough to cover the overhead costs of your freelance business?

That last question is why I was one of more than 1400 medical communicators who participated in the American Medical Writers Association’s 2019 Medical Communication Compensation Survey.

Following a similar structure as the last edition of the survey (published in 2015), the results are broken up into categories for full-time employees and freelancers. Full time was defined as working 32 or more billable hours per week.

Of full-time employees, almost half (46%) reported having a PhD or advanced degree and more than 10 years of experience (42%). The most common employers were pharmaceutical companies (20%), clinical research organizations (14%), medical communications companies (14%), biotechnology companies (9%), medical device companies (8%), health care organizations (7%), and medical schools or universities (7%).

Writers reported a median annual income of $107 000, while editors reported $80 560. The most commonly reported benefits for those employed full time included health insurance (93%), retirement savings plans (85%), life and/or disability insurance (82%), professional development (64%), pretax spending programs (63%), and an annual bonus (60%).

By contrast, of full-time freelance medical communicators, 38% reported having a PhD or other advanced degree, but 72% reported more than 10 years of experience.

There was some overlap with what the first group of employees reported; for freelancers, the most common clients included pharmaceutical companies (21%), medical communications companies (19%), medical education companies (9%), biotechnology companies (8%), medical marketing agencies (6%), medical device companies (5%), and health care organizations (5%).

Full-time writers reported a median annual income of $151 000, while editors reported $77 500. As with the first group of employees, the results note that salaries tend to increase with years worked in the industry.

Because freelancers generally do not receive the same benefits as employees, they tend to charge higher rates to cover expenses (respondents reported an average hourly rate of $116 for writing and $97 for editing). In this survey, respondents reported their most common recurring expenses as professional membership dues, costs of a tax accountant, health insurance, office supplies, and professional development.

The 2019 survey also reported that 55% of all respondents work remotely on a regular basis and of these, 48% only work remotely. This is an industry trend that continues to grow through the use of technology and continued research showing the benefits of remote work.

Organizations, such as the American Medical Writers Association, Council of Science Editors, and Board of Editors in Life Sciences, are valuable in connecting medical communicators with resources and information, especially freelancers or remote workers in need of a network. Sharing data is the core of our careers after all.–Jamie Scott

What’s the Magic Word?

At the beginning of this year, I had the opportunity to escape the slowing thawing tundra of Chicago to attend the 2018 Council of Science Editors Annual Meeting in sunny, Spanish moss–scented New Orleans. In between trips on the streetcar (where I resisted yelling “STELLA!!!” out the window at French Quarter passersby) and consuming half of the Western Hemisphere’s stock of powdered sugar on a plate of beignets, I—along with several women from JAMA Network (#squadgoals)—took in panels on several pressing topics in the scientific publishing community, such preprint servers, image manipulation, diversity in publication staffing, social media, and data sharing.

One of the most highly anticipated discussions was the last panel on the last day, and although conference fatigue was beginning to set in, we sipped our Diet Cokes with determination to soldier through and gain insight from “The Copy Editor–Author Relationship: A Delicate Balance.”

The panel was led by Peter Olson, Senior Copyediting Coordinator at Sheridan Press, and Jessica LaPointe, Managing Copy Editor at the American Meteorological Society. Mr Olson was the first to present and spoke on the “Anatomy of an Author Query.” He highlighted the symbiotic relationship between copy editors and authors and the various challenges that are involved in the editorial process, including tight deadlines, busy schedules, the differing interpretation of editing comments, and the need to convey complex concepts in a way that maximizes the author’s experience and answers the questions of what, when, and why. He offered 4 central tenets for copy and manuscript editors to follow when querying authors:

  1. Be clear. When queries are unclear it can confuse and/or annoy the author, and you may get an equally unclear response. You can’t assume that the author has a perspective on the comment’s meaning or on the ins and outs of your publication’s editorial process or style guide. Instead of simply asking if edits are okay, provide a brief rationale for the change being suggested and indicate if something is a journal/style requirement. When asking the author to clarify something in the text, articulate what is unclear and, if possible, suggest an edit.
  2. Be concise. If your queries are concisely worded then it saves the author time in reading and understanding them, which can make them happier with the editorial process in general. Try to imagine the author’s perspective when creating queries and consider consolidating comments into 1 query (eg, “Please approve all edits in the sentence beginning…” or “Please provide corresponding data for all P values in this paragraph”). Formulating and using standardized queries for comments that you find yourself frequently making in manuscripts can also help save time for you and the author.
  3. Be accurate. Make sure that the way you have phrased your query reflects the edits that need to be made. Although there are no doubt highly trained PhDs and statisticians among us, many manuscript editors (present company included) do not come from a scientific background, and on occasion it may be appropriate to indicate that you are unclear of the subject matter of the sentence. For example, it is better to point out a perceived inconsistency than to just make a change in cases in which the same abbreviation is used to mean 2 different things, or if a sentence has multiple subjects and it unclear to which one data are referring.
  4. Be professional. Avoid language that is informal, flippant, curt, contentious, critical, or hostile, as well as casual abbreviations and exclamation points. Instead of making an open-ended comment like “Can we be more specific here?” specify what needs to be explained. Comments like “This reference needs to be sourced” provide a directive but are not helpful in indicating what information is needed. With authors you sometimes get more with sugar than with spice, so please be sure to actually use the word please and ask them for the exact thing that you need for them to do. As my mother used to say when I pleaded for a Fruit Roll-Up or the chance to watch Bill Nye the Science Guy, “What’s the magic word?”

Ms LaPointe was up next with her presentation on “Maintaining the Delicate Balance.” She stressed the importance of using a light touch to balance editing for clarity with changing meaning and taking your time during editing to potentially lessen the number of queries you need to make. Additionally, she focused on how to work successfully with international authors and presented a series of myths on the challenges that dynamic presents:

Myth 1: Papers from Asia present particular challenges. These authors actually usually write very clearly, utilize effective editing services before submitting articles, and consult with English-speaking colleagues extensively during the writing process.

Myth 2: An extensive English-language education eliminates problems. Authors who are very familiar with English, such as European authors, may have more confidence in than ability with the language and may be reluctant to use US English.

Myth 3: Copy editors prefer editing for English speakers. I think that we can all attest that courteous, cooperative authors are the best authors, no matter where they come from!

Ms LaPointe finished her presentation with a reminder that frankly, English is hard (even for native speakers!), and pointed out some common errors to look for when working with international authors, including preposition confusion (on words such as associated, accompanied, based, center, dissimilar, identical, off, and trade), plural vs singular, disconnected sentences, word choice, the confusion of “eg” and “ie,” and the incorrect use of “et al.”

We all know that maintaining the delicate balance between applying style rules and accommodating author satisfaction can sometimes feel like being stuck in a hamster wheel, but hopefully some of these tips will prove helpful for your editorial process and professional interactions. Just remember the magic word, and if all else fails (and you don’t happen to work on a cardiology publication), you can always treat yourself to the best cure-all for all author woes—a heaping plate of beignets piled with powdered sugar.—Amanda Ehrhardt

Short Course for Manuscript Editors at the 2011 Council of Science Editors Annual Meeting

Today in Baltimore, a group of 35 participants met to learn about and discuss topics relevant to manuscript editors in the Council of Science Editors Short Course for Manuscript Editors. The morning started with Jane Wiggs of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, addressing the editing of abstracts. The session covered the importance of a well-written abstract, the elements of a good abstract, and how to edit an abstract to conform to a journal’s specifications. Wiggs emphasized that effective abstracts consist of clear, concise writing with limited use of abbreviations. She stated that abstracts should include number of observations (eg, the numbers of patients and controls), interventions (including dosages), identification of end points and how they were measured, results of end points in the same order as in the methods section, report of complications or adverse effects, and a conclusion based on data in the article. Her take-home message was that all the information listed in the abstract must appear and match the information in the text.

The next session was led by Trista Wagoner, a copy editor at Science, who addressed how to handle supplementary material. The group discussed the difficulties of editing (or not editing) and publishing supplementary material. Hot topics included whether supplementary material is being used by readers and how to handle authors who want to “dump” supplementary material on a journal’s Web site.

Stacy Christiansen then explored balancing patient confidentiality with dissemination of information. The group examined published photos and text of easily identifiable patients and brainstormed on ways to avoid these ethical and sometimes legal breaches. After lunch, Laura King, a freelance medical editor, led a discussion on levels of editing and how to use this system to communicate with authors and publishers. Participants discussed how they used different levels of editing in their daily work and other uses for the system in the field of publishing.

The course concluded with Elizabeth Blake of Inera Inc, who covered Word tips for editors. This practical session covered how manuscript editors can personalize Microsoft Word so it works effectively for instead of against the editor. Blake covered shortcuts, navigation, find and replace, and editing tables and concluded with a discussion on transitioning to Word 2010. The course was a great kick-off to the 2011 Council of Science Editors Annual Meeting.––Laura King, MA, ELS