Tools

LEADER 03717cam a2200589Ii 4500

001 on1113942191;

003 OCoLC;

005 20191118033459.0;

006 m o d ;

007 cr unu||||||||;

008 190827s2019 ncu obm 000 0 eng d;

035 a| (Sirsi) o1113942191;

035 a| (OCoLC)1113942191;

049 a| EREE;

090 a| PN4778;

100 1 a| Flanagan, Suzan,e| author.=| ^A1383260;

245 10 a| Editorial peer review as a content-shaping mechanism in technical communication journal scholarship /c| by Suzan Flanagan.;

264 1 a| [Greenville, N.C.] :b| [East Carolina University],c| 2019.;

300 a| 247 pages;

336 a| textb| txt2| rdacontent;

337 a| computerb| c2| rdamedia;

338 a| online resourceb| cr2| rdacarrier;

347 a| text fileb| PDFc| 3.213 MB2| rda;

538 a| System requirements: Adobe Reader.;

538 a| Mode of access: World Wide Web.;

502 b| Ph.D.c| East Carolina Universityd| 2019.;

500 a| Presented to the faculty of Department of English;

500 a| Advisor: Michael Albers;

500 a| Title from PDF t.p. (viewed November 14, 2019).;

520 3 a| 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.;

504 a| Includes bibliographical references.;

650 0 a| Journalismx| Editing.=| ^A139241;

650 0 a| Peer review.=| ^A646;

650 0 a| Scholarly publishing.=| ^A101006;

650 0 a| Communication of technical information.=| ^A18453;

653 a| quantitative content analysis;

653 a| editorial decision-making;

653 a| manuscript content development;

653 a| editorial strategies;

653 a| genre theory;

653 a| disciplinary knowledge-making;

653 a| publication process;

700 1 a| Albers, Michael J.,e| degree supervisor.=| ^A613295;

710 2 a| East Carolina University.b| Department of English.=| ^A641948;

856 40 z| Access via ScholarShipu| http://hdl.handle.net/10342/7428;

949 o| wjh;

994 a| C0b| ERE;

596 a| 1 4;

998 a| 5168865;

999 a| CLICK ON WEB ADDRESSw| ASISc| 1i| 5168865-1001l| JNETm| JOYNERr| Ys| Yt| JNE3ETDu| 8/27/2019x| ETDz| JERESOURCE;

999 a| CLICK ON WEB ADDRESSw| ASISc| 1i| 5168865-2001l| HSLELECm| HSLr| Ys| Yt| HEETDu| 8/27/2019x| ETDz| HERESOURCE;

Editorial peer review as a content-shaping mechanism in technical communication journal scholarship / by Suzan Flanagan.

Author/creator	Flanagan, Suzan author.
Other author	Albers, Michael J., degree supervisor.
Other author	East Carolina University. Department of English.
Format	Theses and dissertations
Publication	[Greenville, N.C.] : [East Carolina University], 2019.
Description	247 pages
Supplemental Content	Access via ScholarShip
Subjects	Journalism--Editing. Peer review. Scholarly publishing. Communication of technical information.

Summary	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.
General note	Presented to the faculty of Department of English
General note	Advisor: Michael Albers
General note	Title from PDF t.p. (viewed November 14, 2019).
Dissertation note	Ph.D. East Carolina University 2019.
Bibliography note	Includes bibliographical references.
Technical details	System requirements: Adobe Reader.
Technical details	Mode of access: World Wide Web.

Availability

Library	Location	Call Number	Status	Item Actions
	Electronic Resources	Access Content Online	✔ Available

Editorial peer review as a content-shaping mechanism in technical communication journal scholarship / by Suzan Flanagan.

Click here for more information about this title

Availability