When a writer is applying for a full-time job and HR wants clips, then the writer in question simply presents copies of work that he or she has published. What about an editor, though? How can an editor prove his or her editing prowess? It's not exactly as easy as turning in a clip and saying "Look how well-edited this is." I asked the readers of the mb bulletin boards for their suggestions and here are a few:

In the past, I've generally submitted clips of articles I've edited accompanied by a description of what exactly I did. But I do have a hard time finding the right words to describe everything: often I feel like my accompanying description makes it sound like the whole thing was very easy, instead of, say, a demanding multi-week project. So far I've just assumed that hirers, since they're in the business, will understand the time involved in things like, "conceiving" an idea for a feature, "assigning and editing" copy and "collaborating with art" to come up with a design scheme and photography possibilities.

"I ask if they would like to see a Word doc I have edited using the tracking feature (which I do for my clients anyway). Tracking is great, because it can end up looking like red ink was spilled all over the place. Do this with a shoddy document -- fix the heck out of it. I also have samples of the magazines I have proofed and fixed in my portfolio. These clients are very generous references because they love what I do for them as well. On your resume, in the summary up top (which replaces the old-fashioned objective) specify your skills -- spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc. And don't be like my friend, who submitted a cover letter via email that said she had great spellling skills. (I'm not making that up)," says Jackie Larson.

I have "before" and "after" scans (into pdfs) of work I've done... I either print out and bring along, or e-mail as pdf attachments. Two pages - easy to see the editing scribs.

With the portfolios I've seen and in having mine critiqued lately, there seems to be a trend of providing a synopsis on the sample. So maybe a small text box if your sample is in Word or a label affixed to a sheet protector which describes what the project entailed--"this article came in with run-on sentences, over the word length and poor punctuation. I was able to cut the length and reduce errors to more closely fit the original assignment."

I think before and after is good. I use excerpts of the worst offenders, along with some full (but short) stories showing what was submitted to me and what came out. I keep all originals and post-edited work so I can cherry pick the ones that most reflect my contribution to the final copy. Fortunately I work with ESL reporters, so the editing really shows up in the final copy compared to the original. I imagine it can be difficult to show one's contribution to the copy when working with highly talented and experienced writers. But I suppose if you're surrounded by a lot of talent, you're probably working at a publication that speaks for itself on your resume.

Offering to edit something, or editing something that has already been published (if you can find something in the target pub that makes you say to yourself: "I could have done a better job") has worked for me in the past.