Editors have their insecurities just as much as writers do. One common insecurity among editors is how to handle the situation where people won't hire us (or trust our knowledge) simply because we aren't published ourselves.

Editing can be very expensive, so writers want to ensure that their money is not being wasted. They want assurances that the editor being hired is able to do the job and do it well.

However, just because a person has published a book doesn't mean that they would be a good editor. And just because they haven't published doesn't mean that they would be a lousy editor. All it means is that they've published… or haven't published.

Yet, I have seen this rotten advice given to newer writers time and time again on social media feeds.

Let me say it right now: Anyone who swears by this rotten advice is missing out on the services of some extremely talented editors who have years (and, in some cases, decades) of experience behind them.

In today's post, I want to take a deep dive into why this rotten advice is rotten, and explain why you can't focus entirely on an editor's personal publication history when seeking their services.

Be advised that this post is probably one of my longer posts.

Hiring a Professional

When you spend the money on a builder, a plumber, an electrician, or any other handyman, you want to know that they will do quality work that won't need another handyman to fix a month down the road. So, when seeking their services, you would go with those who have a proven record and meet certain qualification standards.

In my home country, there is something known as the Master Builders, and all builders who are worth their salt join this organization. To become members, they must meet a minimum standard. And I know that if I have an issue with a builder or the like, I can go directly to the main organization for help in getting the mess sorted out.

The same isn't true when it comes to editors, which is part of the problem. There is no regulatory body that insists that our qualifications and experience meet a certain standard that is recognized internationally. There are so many professional organizations for editors around the world, and they all have their own membership criteria... and some of them don't require that you even have editing qualifications. And this has led to the cautious approach that many writers have in hiring editors—rightly so.

But insisting that an editor publish a book of their own before becoming an editor is like insisting that a builder has built his own home before he can take on building contracts.

In fact, there is an old joke regarding this: Want a good builder? Find the builder whose house isn't finished yet.

The good builders are often too busy working on contracts to be working on their own houses. And many of the good editors are too busy working on clients' manuscripts to give their own manuscripts the time it needs.

But not all editors are writers. Many of the editors I know aren't.

This rotten advice comes from the assumption that editors are writers themselves, which is not always the case. And there is the added assumption that an editor who hasn't published themselves is a brand new to the industry and still learning the craft, which is definitely not always the case.

Almost every single editor who I have either worked with or are in my editorial circles are not published authors themselves. But every single one of them has years (and, in some cases, decades) of editorial experience behind them.

The other day, I was talking to an editor with 35+ years of industry experience. She confessed to me that in recent times, she's pitched to present at conferences about topics that she has an incredible in-depth knowledge about because of her years in the industry. However, the conference coordinators were only interested was her personal publication history…which is nonexistent. She has never published a book of her own, and has no desire to do so. Yet, I would trust her knowledge over a newbie editor any day (even if that newbie editor has a large publication catalog), simply because she has the years of experience to back it up.

My own insecurities

This particular post has taken me a long time to figure out how to write. It's not because of the topic, but because, in a way, the message is self-serving. At the time of writing this post, none of my fiction was published—something that I'm working on to change… but it takes time.

But this post was a requested topic from my Mastermind group, which is a group of editors who are all struggling with the same rotten advice given to writers. Some of us in the group are newer editors, with only two or three years of experience. Some of us have been around the block a few times and have been editing for 5+ years. And there's me with almost a decade of experience. (December 2025 will mark my 10th anniversary of being a professional editor and Black Wolf Editorial Services being open for business.)

Among those in my Mastermind group, only one of us has ever published a novel—and nope, it's not me. I'll be achieving that benchmark come that later half of 2025. Yet, all of us know our stuff. Within our chosen specialties (and yes, editing has specialties), we are all experts.

My own specialty is being able to pull apart a story and piece it back together again in a way that beats and paces with the growing tension, keeping a reader engaged. Story structure is my jam. But I also have an in-depth working knowledge of deep point-of-view and the dreaded thing called show vs tell. I'm a master at mimicking a writer's voice, crafting examples to help explain concepts using the writer's own words. Are there things that I could still learn about? Hell, yeah! But every story presents its unique challenges that need to be handled in a unique way. And the techniques I've learned and developed over the years get employed in almost all writing and editing that I do.

Even though I have been at this for nearly a decade, developmentally editing an insane number of stories over the years (I've lost count of how many), I still get the odd writer who gets pushy about seeing my publication history. Those particular conversations always make me nervous (I've written about those awkward conversations before). Within the editing conversations with a prospective client, the moment the conversations turn to publications (either my own or past clients), the end result is always the same: the writer hires someone else.

Look, I get it. The writer wants assurances that I know what I'm talking about. They want a guarantee that I can help them get over the finished line and into the circle of published authors.

Well, no editor can guarantee that—unless the writer has chosen to head down self-publication roads. But even for the self-publishing writers, no editor can guarantee that a writer has a bestseller on their hands. There are too many factors in play. Even the Big-5 publishers can't guarantee a bestseller. It's all a gamble.

It's an editor's job to help the writer curb their language and make it pretty. For the developmental editors among us, it's our job to ensure that the story flows and makes sense. And we help the writer develop strategies to keep the reader engaged.

To quote John McIntyre, former editor at the Baltimore Sun: It's the job of the editor to make sure that the writer doesn't look like an ass in public.

And this brings me to the most important aspect of this.

Editing and writing are different skills

There is another aspect to the idea of hiring editors who are not published themselves that many newer writers don't fully understand. Writing and editing are two different skill sets. And they are not necessarily found in the same person.

While writers are often encouraged to develop their editorial skills, so they can do as much of their own developmental editing as possible, writers still need those external eyes.

There are two issues here: 1) there are different types of editing, which have different skill sets of their own, and 2) the analytical brain for editing is often at odds with the creative brain for writing. For the moment, I want to address the second point.

There are an insane number of articles out there about how important it is for a writer to be able to switch off the internal editor when writing. Don't believe me? Just search for the countless articles about the rewriting process, and discover the commentary that writers have about how hard it is to edit their own novels.

That's because writing and editing are two different skill sets. They have overlapping elements to them, yes. But the analytical skills needed to pull apart a manuscript and make it bleed red are not the same skills as allowing the imagination to roam wild. When both skill sets try to occupy the mind at the same time, you often encounter the self-doubt monster and the dreaded writer's block. To get the story out, one has to let go of the editor and embrace the writer.

Some editors struggle with this idea (letting go of the editor), so they never write.

Developmental Editing vs Copyediting

I know that I'm a rare bird when it comes to my editing skills and the way I work. I've had numerous conversations over the years with other editors about the differences between developmental editing and copyediting. We all agree. The analytical skills associated with copyediting are different compared to the skills needed for developmental editing.

It's not just a matter of understanding punctuation and grammar. And it's not about understanding how a sentence works and creating easy-to-understand language.

Within developmental editing, the editor needs to understand story structure, characterizations, dialogue construction, the difference between show and tell, the difference between narrative constructions, genre conventions, trope concepts, and the list goes on. Much of the knowledge required for developmental editing can be found in a writer of advanced skill. BUT a writer of advanced skill might not be able to convey how they do what they do to someone who is just learning. So, a developmental editor also needs to have the skills of a teacher, a mentor, and a writing coach. Not only that, a developmental editor needs to be up with the play with what is happening in the industry, so their advice reflects what readers are likely to want. It is a lot of working parts that need to fit together, and it takes years to develop the knowledge and skills required to do the job well.

As for myself, I've also developed the skills to mimic another writer's voice, so I can show newer writers how they might employ certain concepts within their own writing using their own words and their own voice. That skill alone puts me at the top of the pack among developmental editors and writing coaches.

But what makes me a really good developmental editor is the fact that I think of story on a grand scale. I have been known to get so absorbed into the story that I no longer see the words on the page, because I'm experiencing the story as though it was a 4-D movie in my head. I can hear it. I can see the action. I can smell the world. And because of it, I notice when a story paces oddly, or if characters react in bizarre ways with no explanation. And I can normally see the path that a story might take, embracing a writer's vision as though it was my own.

It's a function of how my brain works. And it's something that none of the other editors around me seem to have.

But while this trait makes me a really good developmental editor, it also results in missed typos and grammatical errors. My brain doesn't work the way a copyeditor's brain works.

Most of the editors around me specialize in copyediting. Their knowledge of how language works is amazing. For some aspects of what a copyeditor does, they are running the document through a series of rules, checking the punctuation and grammar based on style guides. But in general, they see every word on the page, ensuring that every word has earned its place. They become fixated on the beauty of the language. They just know if the right word is there or if another word would work better. And they love the cadences of the sentences. When recasting a sentence, they work magic. And a copyeditor often walks a fine line between clarity and preserving a writer's voice.

The most skilled of copyeditors will have a thorough understanding of the little nuances associated with US vs UK English—nuances that do my head in—and hence one of the many reasons why I don't offer copyediting services myself.

My point is that while the basic skills of an editor (developmental or copyeditor) are also needed by writers, editors take those skills to a whole different level. Most writers I know don't have the time or patience to develop those skills to the same level as a professional editor at the top of their game.

But one of the reasons why editors develop their skills the way they do is because they love helping writers achieve their dreams and get their ideas out into the world. But that love of helping writers can sometimes mean that an editor doesn't want to write for themselves or have the mental bandwidth to work on their own writing.

What should you be looking for?

Not all editors publish a book of their own. And for some editors, the books they publish are writing and editing guides for other editors (and sometimes writers). Those books are not a reflection of what they can do as an editor.

Searching for an editor with a publication history of their own is not going to find you the best editor for your work. All it will do is find you an editor who happens to be published.

So, if you shouldn't use publication history as part of your vetting process for editors, what should you use?

Look at the editor's credentials, experience, and affiliations.

Somewhere on an editor's website (or in their promo-material), you should be able to find information about their qualifications and experience.

Maybe they've worked at a publishing house for the last decade. Or maybe they hold a degree/diploma in editing. Maybe they have an impressive portfolio of books that they've worked on. And don't discount those testimonials that they happen to have listed, especially if they possess links to people whom you can actually approach and ask questions about what it was like to work with that editor.

And look at their affiliations. Are they a member of a professional organization? Can you verify that their membership is real?

Some professional bodies are better than others, because some organizations insist on a vetting process, ensuring that their members meet a certain standard before being allowed into their ranks. The Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP) is one such organization. So too is the Institute of Professional Editors (IPEd). But even a membership to a professional organization that doesn't "vet" their members is still a sign that the editor is dedicated to their craft.

Look at their portfolio of published clients.

Many editors keep a record of the books that they've worked on. Some editors share this list on their websites (but not all do). Just seeing the collection of published client books is delightful. However, I need to warn you that no client publications listed is not necessarily a sign of a bad editor.

I say this because even though I've worked on an insane number of manuscripts over the years, the number of published client books is quite low. This is because I specialize in working with the newer writer—the one still learning their craft. For some of the writers that I work with, it might be years before those books get published… if ever.

My first client ever (who I worked with back in 2015) still hasn't published her books… and the manuscript that I worked on all those years ago is still sitting in her metaphorical drawer.

As this post gets published (September 2024), I'll be gearing up to work on a book that I first saw in 2021. After massive rewrites, the writer wants me to look at it again and work my structural/pacing magic.

So, when looking at client manuscripts, take in mind the typical client of the editor being hired.

Ask for a sample edit.

For a copyeditor, the best way to vet their work is to see what they can do for your manuscript. Request a sample edit, so you can see what magic they can weave.

Does the editor get you and your writing? Do they understand what it is that you are trying to achieve?

Is the editor so fixated on certain things, indicating that their focus just isn't what you feel your writing needs? Are their suggestions changing your voice in ways that you don't like? (Sometimes, an editor just isn't a good fit for a particular manuscript.)

Be advised that not all editors offer free sample edits. In some cases, they may ask for a small fee.

Ask to chat with the editor about your project.

If you are looking for a developmental editor (or writing coach), it's important that you find someone who will get you and your writing. Sometimes, you need to chat with them about your project to see if the personalities gel.

Many developmental editors might offer a sample edit on a small portion of your manuscript, but please keep in mind that a sample edit won't provide any insight into how the editor approaches the big picture stuff. To properly assess plot, structure, and character arcs, the full manuscript needs to be assessed.

Ask to talk to previous clients.

Sometimes, to get the assurances you need, you need to talk to a previous client of the editor. There will always be a certain amount of nondisclosure involved; we editors can't just give out our client's contact details without permission to do so. But being able to have those conversations is often what is needed to silence the doubts.

Look, I understand what writers go through when trying to decide if they want to hire a particular editor or not. Often, money is a factor in those decisions. But fixating on publication history is only going to show you who can get published. It won't tell you anything about what an editor can do for you or your writing.

Are you interested in services offered by Black Wolf?

As I mentioned above (multiple times), I'm a developmental editor and writing coach. Story structure is my jam, but I also have an in-depth understanding of deep point-of-view and show vs tell. I love working with newer and more experience writers alike. That said, historically, I have favored the projects from new writers.

If you are interested in finding out more about what I could do for you and your writing, reach out and let's have a chat about your project.