Improving Document Review Practices in Pharmaceutical Companies

Stephen A. Bernhardt University of Delaware

Abstract

Document review practices in the research and development functions of many pharmaceutical companies can be frustrating and inefficient, at least in part because these practices are poorly managed. Although the literature on review practice is fairly robust, there is a disjuncture between what researchers know and how reviewers work. The author draws on his experience as a consultant and trainer to many pharmaceutical companies to outline the causes and effects of poor review practice. He offers recommendations to enhance the value and increase the efficiency of reviews.

Journal
Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Published
2003-10-01
DOI
10.1177/1050651903255345
Open Access
Closed

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (4)

  1. Technical Communication Quarterly
  2. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  3. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  4. Journal of Business and Technical Communication

Cites in this index (3)

  1. Technical Communication Quarterly
  2. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  3. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Also cites 7 works outside this index ↓
  1. Bernhardt, S. A. (1995). Technology-driven documentation in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Computer …
  2. Bernhardt, S. A. (1999). Using technology to support global drug development teams. In C. Lovitt & D. Goswami…
  3. Bernhardt, S. A. & McCulley, G. (2000). Knowledge management and pharmaceutical development teams: Using writ…
  4. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridg…
  5. Sellen, A. J. & Harper, R. H. R. (2002). The myth of the paperless office. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  6. Shwom, B. L. & Hirsch, P. L. (1994). Managing the drafting process: Creating a model for the workplace. The B…
  7. Wojahn, P., Neuwirth, C. & Bullock, B. (1998). Effects of interfaces for annotation on communication in a col…
CrossRef global citation count: 8 View in citation network →