This interview study analyses the relationship between translators and revisers and, more broadly, how revision is managed, carried out and perceived in different contexts. The corpus consists of 45 interviews conducted in eleven departments, five of which are examined in more detail. The group of participants is made up of 38 translators who translate and revise, four translators who do not revise and three other professionals from the translation world. The interviewees work at the Swiss Confederation, an international organisation based in Geneva, two private companies with in-house language services, and in the language industry (translation agencies and freelance translators).

The study reveals that revision is managed very differently from one department to another. Some departments revise all texts, while others only revise the most important translations or those produced by junior staff. Similarly, revision practices differ: the predominant method is bilingual revision, but alternative methods such as oral or monolingual revision are used as well. From the perspective of the person who is revising, the activity is negatively perceived overall, as participants dislike the task, view it as difficult and consider that it gives rise to negative emotions. For the person being revised, the activity is deemed to be both a safety net that is appreciated, as well as a necessary evil, as it is unpleasant to have one’s own work assessed by others, then receive the corrected text.

As regards the translator-reviser relationship, the study shows that translators and revisers usually maintain extensive contact, both before and after revision. It brings to light different types of collaboration and defines three forms of respect that can help ensure that revision is experienced positively. In addition, it reveals how explanations play a fundamental role – for better or for worse – in how revision is perceived. Furthermore, it stresses that revision can help both people involved in a revision task improve themselves. Finally, at the collective level, it highlights how revision can, on the one hand, create tensions and, on the other hand, contribute to building cohesion within a translation team.