Support Role 3.4: Full Manuscript Developmental Edit
At the beginning of Year 1, Unit 10 (7 months + 2 weeks into the project) the lead author hands in the full manuscript draft. Each author revised their first chapter and most wrote at least one additional chapter. The lead author read the entire manuscript for consistency in content, voice, and vision. The feedback is provided to the authors 8 months + 2 weeks into the project. The Developmental Editor has one month for the review.
The author team’s next priority is to get the manuscript ready for use with students, so you’ll make recommendations that focus the authors’ revision time on completion. Manuscript development goals can be tackled in Year 2; for now, content that will not be feasible to complete in the available time will move to the Parking Lot. Your recommendations will continue to align with our criteria for success: learner focus, representation of diverse voices, accessibility, and Oregon context.
The Developmental Editor will prepare global feedback for the entire team using the {Course #} Full Manuscript Draft Developmental Edit Feedback [Google Doc] template provided. Please include a minimum of 3 narrative comments in each individual chapter document to identify issues related to the priorities for completion that you recommend for each chapter, and suggest how to resolve them. Aim for one narrative comment per priority and show how a revision can improve each passage. The narrative comments are exemplars for issues that you pull together in your summary feedback.
The Developmental Editor meets with each author team and the Project Manager to share the feedback during Month 9. The authors create a plan to address revision priorities and complete revisions by the end of Month 10.
Using the {Course #} Full Manuscript Draft Developmental Edit Feedback Template
The template is pre-populated with messages for author teams. Please feel welcome to make it your own.
Full manuscript draft developmental edit rubric
You’ll use the same rubric as you did for the half-manuscript review, with the addition of a new category for completeness.
| Characteristics for Review | Well-Developed | Developing | Needs Development |
|---|---|---|---|
| Learner Focus | This manuscript knows its audience and speaks directly and clearly to them at an appropriate level. The chapter has all required parts and the elements are aligned to support student learning. | This manuscript shows progress towards a learner focus and will benefit from work on readability and reducing word count. With more time invested the chapter elements will align to support the learning outcomes. | This manuscript needs to be refocused on the student audience. Chapter elements are missing or lack clarity on connection to learning outcomes. The drafting process is incomplete and outline elements are showing up in the chapter. |
| Representation of Diverse Voices | This manuscript demonstrates an exemplary focus on lifting up diversity, equity, and inclusion through examples, spotlights, and citations. | This manuscript discusses the elements of diversity, equity, and inclusion and will benefit from additional research or inviting new contributors to represent minoritized identities. | This manuscript can do more to support the diversity, equity, and inclusion goals of this project. |
| Accessibility | This manuscript does an excellent job of anticipating the needs of all learners, including students with disabilities. | This manuscript follows some accessibility practices and will benefit from a review to make sure that all learners can use the whole text. | This manuscript will not be accessible to all learners as written. |
| Oregon Context | This manuscript will be relevant and engaging to current, diverse Oregon students. | This manuscript has started to develop its Oregon context and can do more to connect with current, diverse Oregon students. | This manuscript is missing an Oregon context. |
| Complete | All the sections in the outline are present and have content in complete sentences. | Most of the sections in the outline are present and have content in complete sentences. Some elements that are missing or incomplete will need attention in order for students to learn from this textbook. | This manuscript is missing content for a significant number of sections in the outline. |
Readability at a glance:
- Word count: In Google Docs, go to Tools and select the “Word count” tool from the drop-down menu.
- Calculate average reading time by dividing the total word count by 138. Add in the total minutes of required multimedia elements in the chapter.
- Run a readability analysis Readability Scoring System [Website]. This is a clunky tool that can only handle 3,000 words at a time, so if the chapter is longer, you’ll have to divide it into multiple sections and run each section separately to obtain a readability score. The consensus score will be the average of all sections. If there are substantial differences in readability +/-3 points, or sections that exceed grade 12, please note this under the Comments section.
Overall manuscript feedback
Use this section of the document to summarize how you evaluate the overall manuscript for each category of the rubric. So far only the Lead Author has read all chapters, but the entire author team needs to be aware of whether the chapters are hanging together as a unified text that meets the project’s criteria for success. Use this section to offer global recommendations.
Reading chapters and making comments
For each chapter, start by estimating the amount of time you think the author will need in order to get it ready for classroom use. You are welcome to edit or annotate the color-coded scale, but please make sure that the text (“green light,” etc.) stays with the highlighted color so that the scale will be meaningful in grayscale or with a screen reader.
For each chapter, please suggest the top three priorities you recommend to get the manuscript ready to pilot with students. Focus on completion even if that means moving content or ideas into the parking lot. You do not need to create a checklist of what’s incomplete, but if a significant element is missing that creates a barrier to student use, make it a priority.
Use the comments feature of Google Docs to highlight at least one example that corresponds to each priority you suggest in the feedback document. This can be something the author is doing well that you’d like to see more of; or something that the author needs to work on in order for their chapter to be used by students.
Use the provided shorthand in comments to call in-line attention to issues you plan to discuss when you meet with the author team. Please add or edit the shorthand to reflect the comments you leave, and make sure that your comments stay aligned with the project’s criteria for success.
Remember, the author team works with the Project Manager to develop an action plan for revision based on your recommendations. You do not need to make a plan for the team. Instead, your feedback will focus the authors’ revision efforts on getting the manuscript ready to pilot with students.
Most importantly, your feedback will offer praise for the contributions that each author has made to the textbook manuscript so far, and offer encouragement to get to the end of this phase of the project.
Licenses and Attributions for Full Manuscript Developmental Edit
Open content, original
“Full Manuscript Developmental Edit” by Open Oregon Educational Resources is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
Open content, shared previously
“Full Manuscript Developmental Edit” is adapted from Developmental Review Process by Stephanie Lenox for Chemeketa Press, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
