4 Editorial Pet Peeves That Are Getting Your Work Rejected
If you’re overworking your words, it’s time to autocorrect
I’ve been on Medium since 2016 — back when it was a very different landscape; remember the little love hearts? — and in the years following, I’ve written a lot. But I’ve edited even more. Since early 2019, I’ve been Editor-in-Chief of the Post-Grad Survival Guide, and I’ve also worked various ghost-editing roles. And just recently, I came on board Team Medium to work as an editor for their work-focused publication, Index. In these editorial roles, I read through a bucket load of submissions every day — and I reject 90% of them. While that number may seem high, it’s a pretty standard rate across the board. Many publications and websites reject an even greater percentage than that.
In simple terms, for every 100 submissions, only 10 will make the cut. With rejection rates like that, competition becomes fierce. In a bid to stand out, some writers turn to jazzing up their work to make it scream ‘PICK ME.’ In reality, it does the opposite. A little insider secret; a large number of rejections aren’t based on the quality of the work itself. Instead, the writer has included a few too many editorial bugbears into their work, leaving the editor tearing their hair out and reaching for the metaphorical big red rejection button.
The following are the most common. You’d do well to remove them from your work immediately.
Failing to use the in-built features
Every platform has a team of designers and coders who spend their days adding features and improving the user experience. Medium is no different. Did you know they had their own number formatting? And even a bullet point function?
It may seem obvious, but many writers insist on trying to create their own unique — and always more complicated — system. I’ve seen everything from asterisks (*) to dashes (-) to emojis (👉) to form lists within a writer’s article.
- The platform will have a feature for lists
- It will be very simple, easy to use and look good on the platform
- Which is the exact reason someone spent time designing and coding it
- Use them
While creativity is to be admired, doing it your way often makes your work harder to read. And on a platform that measures — and rewards — read time, that’s nothing short of an own goal. Stick to the predetermined formats to allow your words to do the talking.
There may be an exception here and there; if your work, or at least the central thesis of your work, is high-quality, the editor may let you off with this point. I have spent time reformatting the author’s work when it ticked every box except the bit of rogue formatting.
Over formatting
When used correctly, a little bit of italics can really make a difference. Likewise, a little dash of bold here and there can help to drive your point home.
But adding bold and italics to every second line, or worse, huge sections of text, is visually off-putting, especially when combined. A helpful trick is to zoom out of your screen and see how your work looks when you can see the full picture. Not only does this enable you to spot chunks of text that are needing split up, but it will also help you see when you’ve got too keen on the bolding/italics.
In other formatting nitpicks, each platform has features to allow you to format quotes. Use them correctly, i.e., for pulling out quotes. The quote function is not a replacement for a subhead (did I mention the platform likely has a feature for that too?), nor should you pull the majority of your text out into the quote format in a bid to make it stand out more. While you may be inclined to think that makes it have more impact, it usually achieves the opposite.
When it comes to formatting, less is always more.
I’ll say it again.
Less is always more.
Incorrect title formatting
If your title and subtitle aren’t formatted using the platform’s preprogrammed layouts, there’s no excuse. But one slightly more picky bugbear is the correct capitalizing of titles. I understand the confusion; when is it ‘To’ or ‘to’? When is the ‘a’ to be a capital? Lucky, you don’t have to worry about the theory — there are plenty of tools to help you understand how to capitalize your titles properly.
Using correct title formatting helps align your work with the rest of the platform. Remember, your profile page, or a publication’s page, is a brand, and as such, continuity is very important, and appreciated by your audience.
Another tip is to read a few pieces on the publication, and better yet, read the submission guidelines (yes, they exist) to catch any editorial preferences. For example, some publications may prefer sentence case subheads or certain spacing or have a preference in how you use quotations. If the editor can see you’ve put in the time and effort to abide by the style guides, you’re putting yourself in the good books.
The ‘seen it before’ feature image
Sometimes I click on a submission, and I’m overcome with a sense of deja-vu.
I’m certain that I’ve read this before.
To double check, I’ll search for the title in the publication’s backlog. If it doesn’t show up, the answer becomes clear — I’ve seen the stock image before. And now that I think about it, I’ve seen the stock image hundreds of times before.
Your article is only two-thirds of the final product. The other third is arguably more important — it’s the attention grabber. Alongside your title, it’s the best weapon you have to stop a reader scrolling right past your work. What I’m referring to is, of course, the feature image.
Many writers are guilty of getting sloppy at this stage in the excitement of getting their work published. Don’t get complacent and throw in the first stock image you find under a vague term like ‘writing’ or ‘work.’ If it’s in the first few results, you can bet your life it has been used to death. When you chose that all too common image, you’re undermining your hard work, and potentially turning the editor’s eye when they realize they will have to go and find a new one. Worse, you might leave reader feeling that same sense of deja-vu.
Sometimes work is rejected on quality or the topic/subject of the piece. In that case, you either pitched to the wrong publication, or your work still needs some fine-tuning. That comes with time and practice.
But if reading this has lit the lightbulb above your head, and you’ve realized you’re overworking your words, there’s still time to autocorrect. Start with those mentioned above, and watch your chances of successfully pitching shoot way up (to at least 20%).