http://tc.eserver.org/dir/Articles/Publishing/Editing A listing of the most recently indexed works about Articles and Publishing and Editing in the field of technical communication. en-us Copyright (c) 2005-08 by the EServer. All rights reserved. tclib-editorial@eserver.org (TC Library Editorial Board) webmaster@eserver.org (Geoffrey Sauer) http://tc.eserver.org/images/newlogo.gif http://tc.eserver.org/dir/Articles/Publishing/Editing http://tc.eserver.org/35000.html http://tc.eserver.org/35000.html Those who submit manuscripts to academic journals may benefit from a better understanding of how editors weigh ethics in their interactions with authors. In an attempt to ascertain and to understand editors' ethics, we interviewed 3 current academic journal editors of technical and/or business communication journals. We asked them about the ethical dilemmas they encountered while working with authors, whether the editors formally or informally followed a "code of ethics," and if they felt obligated to maintain any ethical codes in particular. In this article, we discuss the ethical dimensions of editorial practices using specific ethical scenarios provided by these three editors. We then analyze these scenarios using traditional ethical models in our field but also in terms of a less-known but powerful model of ethical analysis originally proposed by the philosopher C. S. Peirce. We argue that Peirce's "community of inquiry" ethics model best describes these journal editors' ethics when working with authors. http://tc.eserver.org/34914.html http://tc.eserver.org/34914.html It is a management truism that having a vision based on false hypotheses is better than a lack of vision, and like all truisms it is probably false some of the time, but the same feature holds true in editing: the editor’s main job is to decide what is published, and what is not. http://tc.eserver.org/34840.html http://tc.eserver.org/34840.html Studies of blind manuscript review have illustrated that readers often form impressions of or speculate about unknown authors' identities in the manuscript review task. In this article, the authors extend that work by examining the discursive and nondiscursive features that play a role in readers' active construction of author voice. Through a survey completed by 70 editorial board members of six journals in applied linguistics and rhetoric and composition, the authors identify quantitative and qualitative trends in reviewers' practices regarding voice construction. Findings indicate that many readers do build impressions of an author's identity when reviewing anonymous manuscripts and that the rhetorical nature of the review task may lead readers to attend more to some discursive features than to others. http://tc.eserver.org/34524.html http://tc.eserver.org/34524.html Even if an editor loves, loves, loves your work, she is still likely to have to shepherd it through some kind of review process — either internally, in the case of a trade house, or to external academic readers. Many manuscripts die that way, despite the "interest" of the press. Those that are not outright killed can be wounded and sent back to you for some critical care. http://tc.eserver.org/30082.html http://tc.eserver.org/30082.html This session will help participants understand the process for reviewing manuscripts submitted to http://tc.eserver.org/27985.html http://tc.eserver.org/27985.html Review processes can easily become frustrating and complicated. Hart shows how to create and revive a review process that can be tailored to the needs of your situation. http://tc.eserver.org/24061.html http://tc.eserver.org/24061.html Consistency is the cornerstone of intelligent editing. In these days of leaner staffs and smaller budgets, however, many organizations don't employ full-time editors and depend on contract or freelance editors to make sure their publications are written in a consistent — and thus coherent — manner.