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
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (5)

  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  2. Technical Communication Quarterly
  3. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  4. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  5. Journal of Business and Technical Communication

References (25) · 4 in 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. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  4. Bonk, R. (1998). Medical writing in drug development: A practical guide for pharmaceutical research. Binghamt…
  5. Couture, B. & Rymer, J. (1989). Interactive writing on the job: Definitions and implications of “collaboratio…
Show all 25 →
  1. Couture, B. & Rymer, J. (1993). Situational exigence: Composing processes on the job by writer's role and tas…
  2. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  3. Greenwood, D. J. & Levin, M. (2000). Reconstructing the relationships between universities and society throug…
  4. Hackos, J. (1994). Managing your documentation projects. New York: John Wiley.
  5. Henry, J. (2000). Writing workplace cultures: An archaeology of professional writing. Carbondale: Southern Il…
  6. Katz, S. (1998). The dynamics of writing review: Opportunities for growth and change in the workplace (Vol. 5…
  7. Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Han…
  8. Kleimann, S. D. (1991). The complexity of workplace review. Technical Communication, 38, 520-526.
  9. Kleimann, S. D. (1993). The reciprocal relationship of workplace culture and review. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writ…
  10. Kleinman, P. (1999, July). Key elements in preparing a quality CMC submission. Regulatory Affairs Focus, pp. 32-35.
  11. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridg…
  12. MacKinnon, J. (1993). Becoming a rhetor: Developing writing ability in a mature, writing-intensive organizati…
  13. Technical Communication Quarterly
  14. Paradis, J., Dobrin, D. & Miller, R. (1985). Writing at Exxon ITD: Notes on the writing environment of an R&D…
  15. Sellen, A. J. & Harper, R. H. R. (2002). The myth of the paperless office. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  16. Shrage, M. (1995). No more teams! Mastering the dynamics of creative collaboration. New York: Doubleday.
  17. Shwom, B. L. & Hirsch, P. L. (1994). Managing the drafting process: Creating a model for the workplace. The B…
  18. Spilker, B. (1991). A guide to clinical drug research. Smithville, TX: Raven.
  19. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  20. Wojahn, P., Neuwirth, C. & Bullock, B. (1998). Effects of interfaces for annotation on communication in a col…