Guides
Part of Magazine editorial workflow: a practical guide
How to build a magazine workflow for commissioning briefs, editing and handoffs
Learn how to build a magazine workflow: interview staff, inventory content paths, write a commissioning brief, define editorial handoffs and test one issue.
What to take away
- Interview the people who touch an issue before you draw the workflow; the board usually shows statuses nobody uses.
- Write the commissioning brief once and treat it as the fixed reference for purpose, not for the story's findings.
- Give every handoff a required package, so nothing moves on a verbal promise.
- Keep one current version of the copy and one named person who can approve a late change.
- Run one issue through the system, then delete the steps that produced no decision.
Workflow design starts with the work, not with the columns in a project board. Ask editors, writers, designers, photographers and production staff about copy. Ask where copy enters, where it waits, and where decisions get reversed. The answers are your real process.
Photo and credit
The photograph shows compositors setting metal type and pulling proofs for correction. The tools have changed; the rule has not. A proof is only useful when someone owns the correction.
Inventory the work before you name it
List every content type and the path it usually takes. A reported feature, a review, a photo essay, a chart and a sponsored unit each need different evidence, rights and approval. Mark what is mandatory and what is optional review.
Step record fields
- Input
- Output
- Owner
- Approver
- Deadline rule
- Failure condition
For each step, record the input, the output, the owner and the approver. Also record the deadline rule and the failure condition. Replace "in progress" with states a reader of the board can check: reporting plan approved, copy proof returned, rights cleared.
Write the brief once
The commissioning brief holds the purpose steady while the reporting changes what the piece says. It should carry the reader question, the format and length, the voice, and the reporting expectation. It should also carry the known risks, the visual and rights needs, and the delivery dates. It should carry the name of the decision maker.
Commissioning brief contents
- Reader question
- Format and length
- Voice
- Reporting expectation
- Known risks
- Visual and rights needs
- Delivery dates
- Decision maker name
Seven items is a list, not a sentence. Keep it as a list and the writer can work from it without a meeting.
Put editors in the cycle, not at the end
Poynter's process approach to editing places the editor at idea development, reporting, drafting and revision. A scope question asked early costs a phone call; the same question found on a designed page costs a rebuild.
Schedule a concept check, a reporting check, a first-draft response and a structural edit. Then schedule a verification review, a copy edit and a proof. On a short department item several of these happen in one sitting. Keep the purposes separate even when one editor performs all of them.
Define what moves between desks
| Handoff | Required package |
|---|---|
| Writer to editor | Draft, source list, open questions, asset status |
| Editor to fact check | Approved structure, claim list, source access, contact notes |
| Editorial to design | Locked copy, hierarchy, captions, credits, rights status |
| Design to proof | Complete pages, version number, unresolved exceptions |
| Proof to release | Marked changes, approvals, final asset list |
Editorial to design deserves the most care, because it changes the medium and not just the owner. The CIEP's guide to preparing text for typesetters and designers treats copyediting as two jobs: editing the content, then preparing the copy for publication.
It also separates the typesetter from the designer, because the two expect different preparation. Find out who receives the file, then agree the tagging, style names and asset conventions before the first page is built.
Late changes need an exception route, not a veto. Record who asked, what evidence supports the change, which dependent elements need rechecking, and who signed off release.
Test it on one issue
Run a single issue through the proposed system and time it. Count revision rounds, proof corrections, missing assets, late rights questions and post-publication corrections. Ask staff which fields they used and which they ignored. Cut any step that produced no decision and no record.
Common questions
Which workflow tool should we use?
The one the team will maintain. A shared spreadsheet with clear owners, versions and deadlines beats a licensed platform nobody updates, and it costs nothing to change when the process does.
Must every story pass the same gates?
No. Define risk-based paths, so a 200-word listings entry does not wait on a rights review it does not need. Never let an accuracy or rights decision be skipped without someone recording that it was.
Who authorises late copy?
A named publishing editor, and that person triggers the recheck of affected headlines, captions, layout and metadata. If the name is not on the flatplan, the decision will be made by whoever is nearest the press.
How often should the workflow change?
Review it after each of the first few issues, then on a regular cycle and after any serious failure. A workflow that never changes is usually one nobody is reading.
