Josephine Parker was shortlisted for the IPEd Student Prize in 2025. This year, she returned to win it.
Currently studying a Master of Arts (Professional Writing and Publishing) at Curtin University, Josephine impressed judges with a portfolio that demonstrated “a sophisticated understanding of a range of editorial practices, with appropriate sensitivity towards the authors involved”.
In this interview, Josephine reflects on developing her winning submission, working with real manuscripts through student-run publisher Elephant Page Publishing, and what she’s learning as she builds a future in editing and publishing.
Looking beyond the manuscript
What was the manuscript you worked on, and what made it challenging from an editorial perspective?
The manuscript I worked on was one of the unsuccessful submissions to Elephant Page, Curtin’s student-led publishing house. We saw a lot of potential in the manuscript but didn’t feel it was ready to be accepted, so we wrote a structural letter with the hopes that the author would revise their work and resubmit at a later date.
From an editorial perspective, we didn’t have much time to allocate to the structural letter, since this was a manuscript we weren’t accepting for publication. That meant I had to really focus on what changes would make the biggest difference in the story.
What was your first instinct when you read it, and how did that change as you worked through it?
My first instinct when reading the manuscript was that it could offer great disability representation, especially in a genre that lacks visible and nuanced depictions of disability. Since there were so many different disabilities featured, I felt many people with disability would be able to see themselves reflected on the page. It also featured many strong social themes and had the potential to critique ableism.
However, as I continued reading, I realised that representing disability is actually very complex. It needs to be done with care to avoid problematic language or reinforcing stereotypes. There was the risk of “tokenism”, where characters could be defined solely by their disability without broader characterisation. The manuscript also raised questions surrounding the Own Voices debate, which I also explored in my portfolio. The Own Voices movement argues that narratives centred on marginalised experiences should be written by authors who personally share those identities. In this case, we didn’t know whether the author of the manuscript had lived experience of disability.
So, if a publisher chose to publish the manuscript, there was a risk of supporting the appropriation of minority experiences by those outside the community represented. At the same time, rejecting a manuscript because of this reason could reinforce the existing publishing trend where minority stories remain limited and marginalised groups continue to lack representation.
Discovering editorial confidence
Can you walk us through one specific edit or suggestion you made that you are particularly proud of?
My edits in this letter were all focused on increasing the stakes, or the narrative consequences. The novel was very philosophical and introspective, which I appreciated, but I felt the story needed stronger stakes to create a greater sense of urgency and emotional impact. What I’m most proud of is how specific I was able to get with these suggestions. When reading a manuscript, you can often sense that something feels flat or lacking in intensity, but that can be improved in multiple ways. I think my feedback addressed this quite comprehensively, covering environmental, supernatural, internal and interpersonal stakes.
How do you approach giving feedback that might be difficult for a writer to hear?
I don’t think you should shy away from giving feedback just because it might be hard to hear. Writers want honesty; if you were in their shoes, you would want to know too. At the same time, it’s important not to frame an issue as some fundamental failing in them or their work.
The whole point of feedback is that it’s something that can be fixed, so I always try to show them how to fix it and make sure they believe it can be improved. I think it’s important to avoid vagueness or indirectness too. Giving a specific example can help the author recognise the issue for themselves and think, “Oh yeah, I see what they mean.”
What is something new editors or students often misunderstand about editorial work?
I think it’s easy for new or student editors to doubt their ability to recognise what isn’t working in a manuscript. Because editing can feel so subjective, we can feel tempted to temper our thoughts with “but maybe that’s just me” or “I don’t know if that’s right”. My advice would be to trust yourself! You often intuitively know the difference between something that genuinely isn’t working in a manuscript and something you simply don’t like on a personal level, even if those 2 things sometimes overlap. For example, you might know that, as a reader, you struggle with slow-paced stories, but that doesn’t mean you’re wrong to notice that a book may have too much internal monologue.
What surprised you most about working on this piece? Did anything challenge how you previously thought about editing?
This was the first full-length novel (100,000 words) I had written a structural edit on – previously I had only done so on shorter pieces. It was a struggle at first from the perspective that there was just so much content to analyse, and that can feel pretty overwhelming. But when you’re reading, I find the same issues tend to pop up again and again throughout the manuscript. So actually, the length can help illuminate what the author really needs to work on.
What changed the second time
You were shortlisted previously. What changed in your approach this time? What do you think made this submission stronger than your earlier work?
My first submission was also a structural letter, but it was the first one I had ever done. Looking back on it now, I think I probably spent too much time complimenting the writing. While a structural letter should absolutely acknowledge what’s working, the whole point is still to provide critique.
I also learnt the value of asking the author questions in an editorial letter. You don’t always need to know the best way to fix something. It’s their manuscript, so let them choose the direction. Sometimes the most helpful thing you can do is ask a question that brings the issue into their awareness: What did you mean by this? How could this do more? Why does this scene need to happen here?
This submission was a portfolio, so it showed a broader range of skills. It included some copyediting, part of a structural letter, and a short cultural analysis on the Own Voices issue.
Was there a moment where things clicked for you as an editor?
I think it clicked for me the first time I provided a structural letter for an author outside an academic setting. Hearing that she felt I understood her work and that she could see how the suggestions would add to it was really rewarding – especially hearing that the letter made her excited to keep writing. It made me realise how much an editor can genuinely improve a book, and how important the relationship between editor and author is. That was the moment where it clicked for me that I’m capable of doing this professionally.
What is one habit or approach that has improved your editing the most?
I think what has improved my editing the most is analysing a manuscript categorically, rather than relying on a general vibe of what is or isn’t working. When I’m reading, I’m specifically making notes on things like characterisation, plot, stakes, themes and pacing, and noting where they feel strong or weak. I find that kind of comprehensive analysis helps me give much clearer and more useful feedback, because I can pinpoint exactly where an issue is happening and why.
If someone is just starting out, what should they focus on first?
Start thinking critically whenever you’re reading. Think about what really works in the books you love, and why certain things didn’t work for you in others. Read reviews and talk to people about what you thought; if lots of people are agreeing with you, then that’s probably something the author could have worked more on. Writing is a skill – once you start recognising what makes writing effective, you can more easily notice where something might need work.
What is something small that makes a big difference in an editorial letter?
Like I said earlier, giving specific examples. Quote them! Quote their favourite authors too, so they can see how something works elsewhere and compare it with their own manuscript.
What comes next
What kind of work are you hoping to take on next?
I enjoy copyediting and proofreading, but I definitely find structural editing the most rewarding. In a dream world, I’d get to edit the kinds of books I love to read, which is epic fantasy. I also wrote my Master’s thesis on reader responses to feminist representation in romantasy, so I’d love to channel some of those many hours of research into structural editing work on romantasy as well.
Read more about the 2026 IPEd Student Prize winner and the runners-up