Something So Right: Why I’m Proud of Our Review Process
Abstract:When I was appointed editor of this journal in 1995, STC’s board of directors charged me with implementing the recommendations of a blue ribbon panel that had been appointed to examine how well Technical communication was meeting the needs of the Society’s members. One of the panel’s recommendations was that the editor and editorial board establish “a formal review process in which every article is reviewed by at least two reviewers before it is published in the journal” (“Report of the blue ribbon panel considering the STC journal,” 1995, p. 6).
Early the next year, the editorial advisory board and I adopted a new review process for the journal, and it was published as my second editorial for Technical communication (“Editorial policy and peer review process,” 43, no. 3:222–224; reprinted as “Guidelines for reviewers” at www.techcomm-online.org/shared/info_revs.html). I’d like to mark the fifth anniversary of that editorial by examining how the process works and how successful it has been since we adopted it.
Document Type: Research Article
Publication date: 2001-08-01
More about this publication?
- Technical Communication, the Society's journal, publishes articles about the practical application of technical communication theory and serves as a common arena for discussion by practitioners. Technical Communication includes both quantitative and qualitative research while showcasing the work of some of the field's most noteworthy writers. Among its most popular features are the helpful book reviews. Technical Communication is published quarterly and is free with membership.
- Information for Authors
- Subscribe to this Title
- Membership Information
- Ingenta Connect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites