Q&A: What are “queries”? [in editing & proofreading]

A:Writers query publishers when they send a book/article proposal. Editors query authors about matters in their manuscript. On the face of it, query just means ask, but editors don’t necessarily expect responses to “queries.”

The Comments feature in Word or Acrobat (each shown below), or whatever system is in use is the preferred and best method for leaving queries. That way discussion doesn’t inadvertently get left in the body of the document (especially when the process is rushed or everyone has lost interest in the project).

Very important queries might be repeated in a transmittal memo (the email you send with the revisions attached). And CMS/LMS or ebook systems may necessitate that queries are separate from the material, transmitted in a spreadsheet or matrix.

In an editorial context, to query means literally “to ask a question, especially to express doubt about validity or accuracy.”

Oxford English dictionary

Show Me the Queries!

Queries take many forms and result in a variety of actions. It’s ironic that in a profession concerned with clarity, some of our terms can be so vague! Here are a few examples of queries:

Type of Query	Example	Expected Outcome
Directive	Please provide a source for this quoted material. I was not able to locate it in a quick search.	Citation is provided by the author. Best: Pasted in place and correctly formatted. Acceptable: Put in a reply to the query, for the editor to handle.
Clarifying	Should this be changed to the term xx used earlier or is this a different topic?	Subject expert writer verifies the terms in use and makes necessary changes, perhaps educating the editor further.
Suggesting	How do you feel about moving this content to the appendix?	Debate, or maybe the author will like the idea. Author may make the change or ask the editor to, or make an alternative suggestion.
Explanatory	I have shown how to break up this page-long sentence to bring into the range that our 10-year-old target reader will find easier to decode.	Understanding and acceptance of the tracked changes.
Flagging	Change ok?	Draws attention to a change that could have changed the meaning so that it doesn’t get lost among the sea of markup or inadvertently approved when the author clicks “Accept All Changes.”
Content request	Please add [50 words] explaining this concept so readers don’t have to look away to understand.	Author drafts the needed explanation in place without adding too much content (or an extra chapter!).
Decision request (for global change)	This person was referred to by different pronouns earlier. Was there a change over time or, if this should be consistent, which pronouns do they prefer?	Author verifies and either gives details or makes necessary changes throughout.
Praising	I love this imagery!	It’s a relief to know that the editor doesn’t just find fault and actually sees merit in the writing. Don’t add markup clutter, but don’t stop yourself from leaving praise.

Queries might also be directed at editorial managers such as “This deviates from the style guide but seems to be a part of the author’s distinctive voice/a term of art in this field. Ok to STET?” They can even be directions to production, such as “set this as a marginal feature.” But that’s stretching the definition a bit.

Expected Results

Ideally, authors will make informed changes themselves, according to the publication’s style.

Second-best is that they reply to the query with the needed info so the editor can make necessary and appropriate changes.

Getting Best Results

Make queries positive — even if deleting content or eliminating bad writing, say the suggestion is, for example, “to tighten the prose” rather than “to eliminate wordiness.” Facing a sea of changes is hard, try to lessen the blow.

Keep them brief — so they will actually get read.

Make the required action clear — such as, “Please add in the document, xx.” Asking “Does this mean X or Y?” risks getting unhelpful replies like “yes.”

Focus on the needs of the reader/story — try, “Readers may find this contradictory” or “Add a few words to help readers understand how this deviates from conventional understanding…” rather than “This is confusing/false.”

Be curious, not accusatory — such as “was the change in tone here intentional or is my suggested revision ok?” Though exclamation points have changed their tone from yelling to friendly, beware of using them on negative statements where they lean more angry than friendly.

Be deferential — outside of corporate situations, writing largely remains the writer’s choice; use words like perhaps and consider, and phrases like “was this intentional?”

Keep jargon minimal — pull out the grammar terms only when absolutely necessary; consider links to explanations rather than explaining at length.

Start each query with AU: — so that they can be searched for, helping no query go unanswered; for multiple authors or teams, using an individual’s initials or role (e.g., “Safety:”) can also help.

Do not query every change, — and don’t reflexively ask for authors to verify all facts, calculations, and sources; if asking, say, for example, that you counldn’t get the same result or that it seems off for [whatever reason it is].

Don’t query things you could verify yourself — many quandaries can be solved in under 5 minutes via an online search (beware of lies and baseless fabrications from LLMs/AI).

Don’t ask writers about choices they can’t make — such as a publication’s chosen capitalization pattern.

Use text expanders and macros — these can turn your “WTF” shortcut into an eloquent and deferential query like “AU: This physical situation seems impossible given the limits of the human body” without breaking your flow while editing.

Tell authors in your email (transmittal memo) how to find queries in the document and how you want them handled. You can even send them a link to these quick instructions. Draw attention to vital queries (like uncited content, safety concerns, and major plot holes) but do not repeat every query.

REVIEW QUERIES before transmittal — for their tone, accuracy, & typos; some queries you may even be able to resolve yourself at this point!

Delve Deeper

Learn about Track Changes in Word and markup in Adobe Acrobat.

Laura Poole teaches the art of the delicate query in a webinar from Editors Canada and this post at ACES: Poole’s Pro School of Poise: Negotiating and delivering bad news with grace.

Many resources give guidance for querying. Here’s a roundup of where to look:

Amy Schneider talks queries quite a bit in The Chicago Guide for Copyediting Fiction. Click to see the index entry.

queries, 48–52, 96–97; details, 101; global, 51; labeling on style sheet, 93, 111; methods, 48–49; offering suggestions, 101; to publisher, 52, 97; required, 191; reviewing, 45; sensitive, 46, 52; tone and wording of, 49–51, 152–53

Crystal Yang’s Conscious Language Toolkit for Editors has fantastic templates for writing delicate queries about conscious language.

Carol Fisher Saller’s The Subversive Copyeditor: Advice from Chicago (2nd ed.) provides excellent collegial coaching on the author–editor relationship and specific guidance on querying on pp. 28–29.

Chicago Manual of Style (18th ed.) [CMOS] — 2.75: Writing Author Comments and Queries

American Medical Association Manual of Style — 11.1 Correct and Preferred Usage; and 14.14.2.13 Salmonella.

---

Find where I am teaching next, or: