• Find People
  • Campus Map
  • PiratePort
  • A-Z
    • About
    • Submit
    • Browse
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   ScholarShip Home
    • Dissertations and Theses
    • Dissertations
    • View Item
    •   ScholarShip Home
    • Dissertations and Theses
    • Dissertations
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of The ScholarShipCommunities & CollectionsDateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsTypeDate SubmittedThis CollectionDateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsTypeDate Submitted

    My Account

    Login

    Statistics

    View Google Analytics Statistics

    Editorial Peer Review as a Content-Shaping Mechanism in Technical Communication Journal Scholarship

    Thumbnail
    View/ Open
    FLANAGAN-DOCTORALDISSERTATION-2019.pdf (3.213Mb)

    Show full item record
    Author
    Flanagan, Suzan
    Abstract
    Editorial peer review serves multiple functions in academic journal publishing including gatekeeping, quality control, and mentoring. As representatives of a discipline and its body of knowledge, peer reviewers evaluate manuscripts and help determine what counts as knowledge, what methods and methodologies are acceptable in each discipline, what topics are valued, who gets published, and who gets cited. This mixed-methods study used genre theory as a framework for investigating the ways in which technical communication scholarship is shaped by editorial peer review; the relationships between peer review, editorial decision-making, and manuscript content development were examined. Analyses of 154 reviewers' reports from two technical communication journals showed limited agreement between reviewers' publication recommendations. Structural and comparative quantitative content analyses of reviewers' evaluative comments revealed that reviewers usually evaluated different aspects of manuscripts; when reviewers did evaluate the same aspects, they rarely disagreed. The results suggest that peer review operates as a type of social action in which reviewers internalize the generic conventions of journal scholarship and help authors shape content much like developmental editors do. These findings call for changes to the way we foster disciplinary knowledge-making and require actions such as defining manuscript disposition terms, reviewer roles, and tasks.
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10342/7428
    Subject
     quantitative content analysis; editorial decision-making; manuscript content development; editorial strategies; genre theory; disciplinary knowledge-making; publication process 
    Date
    2019-07-19
    Citation:
    APA:
    Flanagan, Suzan. (July 2019). Editorial Peer Review as a Content-Shaping Mechanism in Technical Communication Journal Scholarship (Doctoral Dissertation, East Carolina University). Retrieved from the Scholarship. (http://hdl.handle.net/10342/7428.)

    Display/Hide MLA, Chicago and APA citation formats.

    MLA:
    Flanagan, Suzan. Editorial Peer Review as a Content-Shaping Mechanism in Technical Communication Journal Scholarship. Doctoral Dissertation. East Carolina University, July 2019. The Scholarship. http://hdl.handle.net/10342/7428. August 11, 2022.
    Chicago:
    Flanagan, Suzan, “Editorial Peer Review as a Content-Shaping Mechanism in Technical Communication Journal Scholarship” (Doctoral Dissertation., East Carolina University, July 2019).
    AMA:
    Flanagan, Suzan. Editorial Peer Review as a Content-Shaping Mechanism in Technical Communication Journal Scholarship [Doctoral Dissertation]. Greenville, NC: East Carolina University; July 2019.
    Collections
    • Dissertations
    • English
    Publisher
    East Carolina University

    xmlui.ArtifactBrowser.ItemViewer.elsevier_entitlement

    East Carolina University has created ScholarShip, a digital archive for the scholarly output of the ECU community.

    • About
    • Contact Us
    • Send Feedback