In her comment to my IRB proposal, Becky asked me to make some more reflective blog posts, asking, "How did revising this make you feel? How did you focus in on your idea? How do you see your work fitting into the larger discipline? Why did you choose the methods you did? etc."
So here goes:
I chose my idea for the IRB because I've worked as an editor for an academic peer-reviewed journal, a university press, a trade book publisher, and a professional magazine, and I'm fascinated by the different styles and work methods editors use in each of these cases. I currently edit Intercom, which is a membership magazine that does not use a peer-review process (although I sometimes feel as though a publication sent to all members of STC is in many ways "peer-review" because many STC members are quite vocal!). As a solitary editor, I sometimes feel as though I work in a vacuum, even though (or especially because?) the TC field is quite diverse.
Because I'm sensitive to this issue, I've recently established and been collaborating with members of an Editorial Advisory Panel, who assist me with ideas for topics and authors, but I am curious about how larger groups of editors, especially for online journals, conduct collaborative editing. I'd eventually be interested in expanding this research beyond Kairos, but for time and focus considerations, I really needed to begin with a micro or pilot study. For methods, I've chosen only a questionnaire for now because I really need to focus on data collection, but I would like to try a survey or interviews with editors, including site visits and artifact collection at a later point.
I think this study has the potential to make solid recommendations for better editorial work methods. And I see this study being useful to editors in all disciplines, not just TC. I think TCers and academics would find the research enlightening, especially since editors are, in many ways, responsible for promoting a body of knowledge that represents the field. And also because tenure and promotion decisions are frequently made based on publication, so individuals making those decisions need to know the publication's assessment process to determine the worthiness of a particular publication.
More reflection to come....
About Liz
- Liz Pohland
- Washington, DC, United States
- Welcome! I am currently a second-year PhD student in Texas Tech's Technical Communication and Rhetoric program. I am also editor of Intercom for the Society for Technical Communication. I began my academic career with a BA in English and French from Hollins College, with an emphasis in creative writing and poetry. In 1997, I graduated with my MA in English from Virginia Tech, intent on becoming an editor. My career in publishing started at Princeton University Press, as an editorial assistant to the English studies, anthropology, and art editors. After Princeton, I accepted an editorial and design position at the Folger Shakespeare Library, working on the academic journal Shakespeare Quarterly. I spent 10 years at the Folger, ultimately deciding that I was more interested in publishing, technology, and writing than in literary studies. In Fall 2008, I entered the Texas Tech program in TCR as an online student. Taking classes online has been an exciting adventure--one that I am so glad I had the opportunity to be a part of. I am now an on-campus student, thanks to a generous fellowship. I hope to finish my coursework by Summer 2010.
3 comments:
Yeah, Liz!
The reflection that you're engaging in now will, I think, provide fodder for an introduction once you've gathered data and are ready to present/publish.
Plus, this type of reflection keeps you "honest". Since you know your connection to this research, you need to constantly be questioning yourself: am I finding what I only expect to find? Am I interpreting my data in a way that might be biased? etc.
I don't think you'll do any of these things, of course, but KNOWING that you have a relationship with the research is a good way to make sure that what you're gathering/interpreting is balanced.
Liz-
Several comments for your consideration. If any stick, use them; if they don’t stick, chunk ‘em into the round file.
Your proposal seems to missing what you plan to do with the data. In other words, your procedure is only data collection. Are your analysis techniques dependent on the data you collect?
You list four benefits. The most important benefit is to help budding authors overcome that first tier in the editorial process. That first tier edit really determines if an article is actually published. The other two tiers are just formalities.
You mention that “editors are, in many ways, responsible for promoting a body of knowledge that represents the field.” Half jokingly, and half seriously, I would reword that sentence to say, “editors are in many ways, responsible for CONTROLLING and promoting a body of knowledge that represents the field.” Editors have more power over the information than you suggest.
Several questions that are not necessarily related to your research--Do editors publish statistics, such as how many articles are submitted? How many are rejected? Major reasons for rejections? Do editors follow any standardized format or process for accepting, rejecting, or editing articles? Is there an ad hoc process for each organization? What do YOU look for when you get an article?
Rob
Thanks, Rob! I think your take is great, as it forces me to think about what someone else finds most beneficial in the research, which does not necessarily match with what I thought that would be. For example, you mention that helping budding authors overcome that first tier in the editorial process is the most important tier, as "it really determines if an article is actually published. The other two tiers are just formalities." I don't know if this is true for every submission, hence collaboration between authors and editors. For example, I often work with an author to develop an idea or rework an article, rather than only rejecting it outright. And I always give feedback, even if I'm rejecting something. Since it is the collaborative tiers I'm more interested in, your point has already helped me to focus my questions further.
Your comment about editors' controlling the body of knowledge scares me a little. I'm certain there are degrees of control, some editors with more than others, and I think this is a very complex thing to tackle in research. But I am glad to know others feel this way about editors, and this is also why I think collaboration (between editors and with authors) is so important.
To answer your other Qs: In my experience, yes, many journals publish stats about article submissions, rejections, etc. Sometimes those stats are published on the page with the article, sometimes they are provided to editorial boards. But in general, again in my experience, reasons are provided to authors about why an article is not accepted, but not openly published. The process may very well be ad hoc, but the process should be KNOWN by the authors, and in many cases, it is not. I need to research more about this though. I know for some scientific and medical peer-review journals there are guidelines (and even a Peer Review International Congress: www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/peerhome.htm).
I'll have to address what I look for in an article in an upcoming blog post! Thanks for the fodder!
Post a Comment