For a copy editor (and an author), confusing text can be like hitting a red light on the road.
There are ways of resolving it (or even avoiding it completely).

No one says copyediting is easy, except those who have never done it. Along the way, copy editors will encounter text that may be confusing, contradictory with other parts of the text, or just unclear.

Querying is one way of resolving such issues but must be approached judiciously. The reality is that very often those who review a manuscript are too busy to thoroughly read what’s there. So queries must be short, concise, and clear. Queries must point directly to the issue being questioned.

From an author’s perspective it’s critical to read all queries that have been noted in the manuscript, or, if the book is going directly from manuscript to page proofs, in the page proofs.

By definition, in the copyediting realm querying is the process whereby the copy editor asks the reviewer about some aspect of a manuscript that may be incorrect or incomplete. It can be a difficult area for a novice copy editor to grasp or for even an experienced copy editor to master.

Some publishers may provide a list of acceptable formats for queries and might dictate exactly how and when queries should be used. Be careful when using these: “One size fits all” doesn’t always apply.

What is most important for the copy editor to realize is that in most cases authors will not recognize or even understand their errors or omissions unless they are pointed out.

And what is most important for an author to understand is that the query inserted by the copy editor might not be specific enough to zero in on the problem area.

Here’s what the CMOS says about querying. [The end of the quoted material is marked with a box [∎].

From The Chicago Manual of Style, section 2.66:

Editors may generally impose a consistent style and correct errors without further comment—assuming these changes are apparent on the edited manuscript. Corrections to less obvious problems may warrant a comment. Comments should be concise, and they should avoid sounding casual, pedantic, condescending, or indignant; often, a simple “OK?” is enough. Comments that are not answerable by a yes or a no may be more specific: “Do you mean X or Y?” Examples of instances in which an editor might comment or query include the following:

• • To note, on an electronic manuscript, that a particular global change has been corrected silently after the first instance

• • To point out a discrepancy, as between two spellings in a name, or between a source cited differently in the notes than in the bibliography 

• • To point out an apparent omission, such as a missing quotation mark or a missing source citation

• • To point out a possible error in a quotation

• • To point out repetition (e.g., “Repetition intentional?” or “Rephrased to avoid repetition; OK?”)

• • To ask for verification, as of a name or term whose spelling cannot be easily verified

• • To ask for clarification where the text is ambiguous or garbled

• • To point to the sources an editor has consulted in correcting errors of fact ∎

There are two points in CMOS’s description worth commenting on.

1) I’d only use the simple “OK?” approach if the query is placed where the reviewer will see exactly what was changed. I avoid this approach and prefer to include what was changed in the query:

                                                                                           Author: “Blue” instead of “green” OK as changed?

2) CMOS mentions pointing out an error in a quotation: Be careful with this. What someone has said should never be changed, including errors in grammar. The purpose of including a quote is to be accurate. If the author says

                                                                                               We ain’t got no money. We’re doing our best.

It should stand. That’s why “sic” is often used. “Sic” is Latin for “thus it had been written,” which means that the quote was transcribed exactly as it was said, including any errors. “Sic” is usually shown in square brackets, like this:

                                                                                            We ain’t got no money [sic]. We’re doing our best.

It would be a mistake to change it to read

                                                                                            We don’t have any money. We’re doing our best.

Querying is the major difference between copyediting Levels 1 and 2. In Level 1, the assumption is that the text is reasonably well written and that the copy editor is unlikely to encounter significant issues. In Level 2, especially with manuscripts authored by non-native speakers, language issues are common. Querying in Level 2 is usually the limit in terms of what a copy editor should be required to do to address an issue.

In Level 3, querying often accompanies significant changes that are made: Because the editor has no way of knowing how attentive the reviewer will be, it’s critical for the editor to clearly point out significant changes or potential errors.

The biggest querying mistake I see on a regular basis is when the copy editor will say

                                                                                                          Author: Please check sentence.

This rarely serves any purpose unless the copy editor points out exactly what is being questioned.

Making significant changes and querying in Level 3 is usually the limit in terms of what a copy editor should be required to do to address an issue.

Significant changes beyond rewriting fall under the category of developmental editing. We’ll discuss DE and other types of editing in Part 4 of this series.

• • The copy editor must be careful, consistent, and judicious regarding how and what is queried.

• • And as an author, it’s critical to pay attention to what the editor has queried.

If both of these points are followed, in most cases those reds lights can turn green and we can all be on our way

Stayed tuned for Part 4, when we’ll explore other types of editing.