Review, revision and proofreading services
Choose the quality check that matches the risk.
These services are often used as if they were interchangeable. They are not. DEMA separates subject-matter review, bilingual revision and final target-language proofreading so the right person checks the right thing at the right stage.
Revision: is the translation correct against the source?
Proofreading: is the final target text clean and publishable?
Do not pay for the wrong check or skip the one you actually need.
Three simple questions decide which check you need. The comparison below makes that decision practical for procurement, project managers and internal reviewers.
Quality is a sequence, not a single final glance.
Depending on the project, DEMA can apply one layer or combine several. A regulated manual may need bilingual revision and client technical review; a translated brochure may then need DTP proofreading after layout.
Translate or prepare the target content
The first target version is created through the appropriate human or MTPE workflow.
Revise against the source
A second qualified linguist checks whether the target accurately carries the source content and terminology.
Apply subject-matter review where needed
A domain specialist or client-side reviewer checks intended use, product language or local conventions.
Finalize the document
Corrections are incorporated into the target and, in recurring programmes, into the translation memory or glossary where appropriate.
Proofread the publishable version
The final target document is checked for language and presentation problems introduced during editing or layout.
Concrete quality criteria instead of a generic “high quality” label.
Every quality claim we make is tied to a specific check. The exact checklist varies by file and content type.
Linguistic accuracy
Meaning and target-language correctness.
Terminology & consistency
Correct use of approved vocabulary.
Hard-data integrity
Items where small errors can have large consequences.
Publication quality
Problems visible only in the final format.
Your experts should correct once, not repeat the same feedback every release.
For recurring documentation, your engineers, dealers, legal teams or in-country reviewers can be built into the review step, and approved corrections land in your translation memory and glossary instead of staying in email threads.
Review closer to the source
The person who knows the product can work on the segment that matters instead of reconstructing context from an exported document.
Reusable corrections
Validated terminology and recurring edits can become part of future releases.
Visible responsibility
The workflow makes it clearer whether a change is linguistic, technical, stylistic or local-market specific.
Quality checks are most valuable where publication, safety or reputation makes rework expensive.
The right service depends on what you already have.
Can you revise a translation produced by another supplier?
Yes. DEMA can work on existing target content, but the scope should be defined: source comparison, terminology review, subject-matter review or final proofreading.
Is proofreading enough for a high-risk translation?
Proofreading checks the target text but does not necessarily compare it to the source. For high-risk material, bilingual revision may be required before final proofreading.
Can our internal expert be the reviewer?
Yes. In recurring workflows, internal subject-matter experts can be integrated into the review path, especially when product or local-market terminology requires client approval.
Will corrections update our translation memory?
Where the project uses a maintained TM, approved changes should be incorporated so future content does not repeat the same issue.
Define the risk before you define the review step.
Send the source, target and intended publication context. We can identify whether you need review, revision, proofreading or a combination, and where that check belongs in the workflow.
Talk to DEMA












