Is there a difference between proofreading and editing?

I work as both a proof reader and an editor, and one of the most important things that I have learned is that you have to be sure of what your client is wanting from you before you undertake the work. I usually class proof reading as checking for errors in grammar and readability and highlighting them. Sometimes a client will ask for me to correct these on their behalf, others just want them highlighting. Editing is usually more to do with changing bits of the piece as a whole and taking on more responsibility for it. Often a proof read can occur without anything being changed at all, but it is rare that nothing is changed during an edit.

Proofreading can be editing and editing can be proofreading. It's just a matter of degrees. An editor often decides which material is published as well as suggests minor or major changes, and/or makes some changes. A proofreader checks facts, grammar and spelling as well as making minor changes to text to improve readability. As a rule, a proofreader can't make major changes or change the intended sense of the material. In a good organization, a proofreader can suggest changes to an editor, not to the author. The editor has the final say.

I think there is a slight difference between proof reading and editing. In editing, you get an unabridged version which you edit and correct the errors. During editing we encounter a lot of errors. Once editing is done then proof reading is done inorder to check if there are further any errors. Usually errors during proof reading are very less.

Yes, there is a big difference between the two, although most people suppose one is the same as the other. While proofreading checks content for surface errors (such as grammar, punctuation, and spelling), editing takes care of the language and technical aspects of writing. You can learn more in this article: http://sergspogi.hubpages.com/hub/What-Is-Copy-Editing