ISSN 2518-7600 e-ISSN 2524-1060 UDC 90,92,93/94
Submit an article

Society. Document. Communication

Article

Editorial standards in European publishing houses using the example of Great Britain

Alina Bondarenko
Retrieved from Volume 10, No. 3, 2025 Pages 8–22
Received
01.05.2025
Revised
18.08.2025
Accepted
23.09.2025
Views
620

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to trace the evolution of editorial standards in UK book publishing and find out their impact on the development of ethical, linguistic, and professional norms in the European publishing space. The study covered five phases, in which the historical, institutional, technological, and integration aspects of the British editorial tradition, which has evolved from craft practices to contemporary quality control systems. The results showed that the professionalisation of editing in the UK was formed as a multi-level system that combined language unification, ethical control, and technological modernisation. It was found that the standards developed within the university publishing houses became the basis for European standards of textual accuracy, and the introduction of codes of editorial ethics and review systems ensured the stability of publishing procedures. It was revealed that the mechanisms of fact-checking and reliability in British practice have a clear institutional structure, and their effectiveness is confirmed by the level of transparency, publicity of reports, and interaction of independent organisations with public broadcasters. The study also showed that the digitalisation of editorial processes in the UK has not led to the loss of the humanitarian content of the profession: automated tools were used as auxiliary tools to ensure grammatical correctness and stylistic consistency, but the final control remains with the individual. The analysis showed that the British editing model serves as a benchmark for the balance between technological efficiency and ethical principles, forming the basis for further unification of European standards. The practical significance of the study lies in the possibility of applying British editing principles to improve national publishing policies, create common quality control criteria, and develop training programmes for editors in European countries

Keywords

professional ethics; reliability control; reviewing; fact checking; proofreading; digital tools

References

  1. A companion to the English Style Guide. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2023-11/styleguide_english_dgt_country_compendium_en.pdf.
  2. Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers. (n.d.). Retrieved from ​https://www.alpsp.org.
  3. Baron, R. (2024). AI editing: Are we there yet? Science Editor, 47, 78-82. doi: 10.36591/SE-4703-18.
  4. BBC Verify. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/bbcverify.
  5. BBC. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/.
  6. Butcher, J., Drake, C., & Leach, M. (2006). Butcher’s copy-editing: the Cambridge handbook for editors, copy-editors and proofreaders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Cambridge University Press. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/.
  8. “Carelessness rife” in UK publishing fact-checking as concerns grow over workloads, AI and “status bias”. (2025). Retrieved from https://www.thebookseller.com/news/carelessness-rife-in-uk-publishing-fact-checking-as-concerns-grow-over-workloads-ai-and-status-bias.
  9. Cavaliere, P. (2020). From journalistic ethics to fact-checking practices: Defining the standards of content governance in the fight against disinformation. Journal of Media Law, 12(2), 133-165. doi: 10.1080/17577632.2020.1869486.
  10. Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ciep.uk/.
  11. Chia, L. (2002). Printing for profit: The commercial publishers of Jianyang, Fujian (11th-17th centuries). Harvard: Harvard University Press.
  12. Chong, S.W., & Mason, S. (2021). Demystifying the process of scholarly peer-review: An autoethnographic investigation of feedback literacy of two award-winning peer reviewers. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8, article number 266. doi: 10.1057/s41599-021-00951-2.
  13. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://static.elsevier.es/assets_org_prod/webs/6/pdf/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers.pdf.
  14. Correcting with cancel slips. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.folger.edu/blogs/collation/correcting-with-cancel-slips.
  15. Cushion, S. (2025). The truth about fact-checking. British Journalism Review, 36(3), 27-33. doi: 10.1177/09564748251370.
  16. Desai, D.R., & Riedl, M. (2024). Between copyright and computer science: The law and ethics of generative AI. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 22(1), 55-108.
  17. Digital Tools & AI Tools for Journal Editors. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.reviewercredits.com/digital-and-ai-tools-for-journal-editors.
  18. Editorial style guide of the ITU Journal on future and evolving technologies (ITU J-FET). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.itu.int/en/journal/j-fet/Documents/ITUjournal_editorial_style_guide.pdf.
  19. Elliott, C. (2023). Paul Hamlyn: British publishing mould breaker. In The coffee-table book in the post-war Anglophone world (pp. 141-175). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-38902-3_7.
  20. English Style Guide. (2016). Retrieved from https://eige.europa.eu/resources/styleguide_english_dgt_en_0.pdf.
  21. English Style Guide. (2025). Retrieved from https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2023-11/styleguide_english_dgt_en.pdf.
  22. Feather, J. (2005). A history of British publishing. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203126806.
  23. Federation of European Publishers. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://euread.com/member/federation-of-european-publishers.
  24. Ferracioli, P., Kniess, A.B., & Marques, F.P.J. (2022). The watchdog role of fact-checkers in different media systems. Digital Journalism, 10(5), 717-737. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2021.2021377.
  25. Fiorillo, L., & Mehta, V. (2024). Accelerating editorial processes in scientific journals: Leveraging AI for rapid manuscript review. Oral Oncology Reports, 10, article number 100511. doi: 10.1016/j.oor.2024.100511.
  26. Formatting guide. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/formatting-guide.
  27. Franklin, S.B. (2025). The editor: How publishing legend Judith Jones shaped culture in America. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  28. Full Fact. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://fullfact.org/.
  29. Grammarly. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.grammarly.com/.
  30. Griffiths, M. (2022). “The answer, as well as a technique”: A reflection on editorial, creative, and critical labor. Textual Cultures, 15(1), 79-87.
  31. Guide to applying for journal membership. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/membership/becoming-cope-member/guide-applying-journal-membership.
  32. Handover, P.M. (2025). Printing in London: From 1476 to modern times. Oxfordshire: Taylor & Francis.
  33. Hart, N. (1912). Rules for compositors and readers at the University Press, Oxford. Retrieved from https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/71188/pg71188-images.html.
  34. Heibi, I., Peroni, S., & Shotton, D. (2019). Software review: COCI, the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI citations. Scientometrics, 121(2), 1213-1228. doi: 10.1007/s11192-019-03217-6.
  35. Heintz, K., Roh, Y., & Lee, J. (2022). Comparing the accuracy and effectiveness of Wordvice AI Proofreader to two automated editing tools and human editors. Science Editing, 9(1), 37-45. doi: 10.6087/kcse.261.
  36. Hidalgo-Cobo, P., López-Marcos, C., & Puebla-Martínez, B. (2024). Debunking practices and topics: Fact-checking agencies from the United Kingdom, France and Spain. Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies, 16(2), 257-275. doi: 10.1386/cjcs_00112_1.
  37. Horbach, S.P., & Halffman, W. (2020). Innovating editorial practices: Academic publishers at work. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 5(1), article number 11. doi: 10.1186/s41073-020-00097-w.
  38. International Publishers Association. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://internationalpublishers.org.
  39. James, S. (2013). New Oxford Style Manual (2nd edition). Reference Reviews, 27(5), 33-34, doi: 10.1108/RR-04-2013-0084.
  40. Johanson, K., Rutherford, L., Reddan, B. (2022). Beyond the “good story” and sales history: where is the reader in the publishing process? Cultural Trends, 32(2), 91-106. doi: 10.1080/09548963.2022.2045864.
  41. Joseph, M. (2024). Closing ranks: The Publishers Association in Victorian Britain and its powerful place in institutional formation. Business History, 67(6), 1490-1511. doi: 10.1080/00076791.2024.2393603.
  42. Law Favo, M.A. (2024). Editors and world Englishes: Exploring (the interaction between) editors’ sociolinguistic profiles and the norm-providing sources they use for editing work. English World-Wide, 45(1), 61-93. doi: 10.1075/eww.23004.law.
  43. Liu, X., Qi, L., Wang, L., & Metzger, M.J. (2023). Checking the fact-checkers: The role of source type, perceived credibility, and individual differences in fact-checking effectiveness. Communication Research, 52(6), 719-746. doi: 10.1177/00936502231206419.
  44. Maw, M. (2014). Printing technology, binding, readers, and social life. In Wm. Roger Louis (Ed.), The history of Oxford University Press: Volume III: 1896 to 1970 (pp. 277-308). Oxford: Oxford Academic. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199568406.003.0009.
  45. McIlroy, T. (2025). The AI revolution in book publishing: A concise guide to navigating artificial intelligence for writers and publishers. London: The Future of Publishing.
  46. Modiano, M. (2023). The future of British English in the European Union: What standard will the EU adopt in the post-Brexit era? English Today, 39(2), 149-154. doi: 10.1017/S0266078422000244.
  47. Murphy, J. (2019). Who is checking the checkers. Retrieved from https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/id/eprint/15278/1/Who_is_checking_the_checkers.pdf.
  48. Nash, A., Squires, S., & Willison, I.R. (2021). The Cambridge history of the book in Britain (Vol. 7. The twentieth century and beyond). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  49. Nature. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/.
  50. Norton, S. (2024). Developmental editing: A handbook for freelancers, authors, and publishers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  51. OSCOLA (Oxford University Standard for the Citation of Legal Authorities). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/migrated/oscola_4th_edn_hart_2012.pdf.
  52. Our background. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ciep.uk/about-the-ciep/our-background.html.
  53. Oxford Dictionaries Online. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://languages.oup.com/.
  54. Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://corp.oup.com/.
  55. Penguin Random House UK. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.penguin.co.uk/.
  56. Perceptions, power, and polarisation: the political impact of UK fact-checking. (2024). Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2025-01/RISJ%20Fellows%20Paper_Tom%20E_MT24_Final.pdf.
  57. PerfectIt. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.perfectit.com/.
  58. Plant, M. (2024). The English book trade: An economic history of the making and sale of books. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781003544869.
  59. Porter, E., & Wood, T.J. (2021). The global effectiveness of fact-checking: Evidence from simultaneous experiments in Argentina, Nigeria, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(37), article number e2104235118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2104235118.
  60. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. (2022). Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing.
  61. Reinhart, M., & Schendzielorz, S. (2024). Peer-review procedures as practice, decision, and governance – the road to theories of peer review. Science and Public Policy, 51(3), 543-552. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scad089.
  62. Ritter, R.M. (2002). The Oxford guide to style. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  63. Ritter, R.M. (2005). New Hart’s Rules: The handbook of style for writers and editors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  64. Robinson, M. (2025). Political coverage in the United States v. the United Kingdom: A comparative analysis. Retrieved from https://conservancy.umn.edu/items/fb3c20b7-dee2-47b1-be3e-19e9f20c1a6f.
  65. Salatino, A.A., Osborne, F., Birukou, A., & Motta, E. (2019). Improving editorial workflow and metadata quality at springer nature. In International semantic web conference (pp. 507-525). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2103.13527.
  66. Samuelson, P. (2023). Generative AI meets copyright. Science, 381(6654), 158-161. doi: 10.1126/science.adi0656.
  67. Schofield, L., & Zhou, X. (2025). AI-assisted writing and editing. In Institutional guide to using AI for research (pp. 149-163). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-94809-1_7.
  68. Submission guidelines. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/palcomms/author-instructions/submission-instructions.
  69. Suomalainen, K., Nykänen, N., Seeck, H., Kim, Y., & McPherson, E. (2025). Fact-checking in journalism: An epistemological framework. Journalism Studies, 26(10), 1129-1149. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2025.2492729.
  70. The history of the Publishers Association. (2021). Retrieved from https://www.publishers.org.uk/publishers-association-history.
  71. Trinka. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.trinka.ai/.
  72. Waddingham, A. (2014). New Hart’s Rules: The Oxford style guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  73. What is ISO 9001? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://advisera.com/9001academy/what-is-iso-9001.
  74. WoodWing Studio. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.woodwing.com/blog/ai-powered-publishing-woodwing-studio.

Suggested citation

Bondarenko, A. (2025). Editorial standards in European publishing houses using the example of Great Britain. Society. Document. Communication, 10(3), 8-22. https://doi.org/10.69587/sdc/3.2025.08