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

Simple item page
dc.access.optionOpen Access
dc.contributor.advisorAlbers, Michael J.
dc.contributor.authorFlanagan, Suzan
dc.contributor.departmentEnglish
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-21T14:25:42Z
dc.date.available2020-02-01T09:01:55Z
dc.date.created2019-08
dc.date.issued2019-07-19
dc.date.submittedAugust 2019
dc.date.updated2019-08-19T17:36:15Z
dc.degree.departmentEnglish
dc.degree.disciplinePHD-Rhetoric, Writ, Prof Comm
dc.degree.grantorEast Carolina University
dc.degree.levelDoctoral
dc.degree.namePh.D.
dc.description.abstractEditorial 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.
dc.embargo.lift2020-02-01
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10342/7428
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherEast Carolina University
dc.subjectquantitative content analysis
dc.subjecteditorial decision-making
dc.subjectmanuscript content development
dc.subjecteditorial strategies
dc.subjectgenre theory
dc.subjectdisciplinary knowledge-making
dc.subjectpublication process
dc.subject.lcshJournalism--Editing
dc.subject.lcshPeer review
dc.subject.lcshScholarly publishing
dc.subject.lcshCommunication of technical information
dc.titleEditorial Peer Review as a Content-Shaping Mechanism in Technical Communication Journal Scholarship
dc.typeDoctoral Dissertation
dc.type.materialtext

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
FLANAGAN-DOCTORALDISSERTATION-2019.pdf
Size:
3.21 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

Collections

Dissertations
English