Abstract

This article presents findings of an interview study with twenty rhetoric and composition scholars. Findings focus on the responsibilities of reviewers, editors, and writers in scholarly peer review. The authors make several recommendations for improving peer review practices and call for a field-wide discussion of and research about the topic.

Journal
College Composition and Communication
Published
2019-09-01
DOI
10.58680/ccc201930297
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (4)

  1. Technical Communication Quarterly
  2. College Composition and Communication
  3. College Composition and Communication
  4. College English

References (31) · 5 in this index

  1. “Some Thoughts on Changing the Review Process for Academic Journals: A Personal Exploration.”
    Rhetoric Review
  2. College Composition and Communication
  3. “The Power and the Perils of Peer Review.”
    Rhetoric Review
  4. “Improving Manuscript Evaluation Procedures.”
    American Psychologist  
  5. “Journal Reviewing Practices: Authors’ and APA Members’ Suggestions for Revision.”
    American Psychologist  
Show all 31 →
  1. “Scholarship in Rhetoric, Writing, and Composition: Guidelines for Faculty, Deans, and Chairs,”
    CCCC
  2. “Guiding Principles for Supporting Faculty as Writers at a Teaching-Mission Institution.”
    Geller and Eodice
  3. College Composition and Communication
  4. “Recommendations for Contemporary Editorial Practices.”
    American Psychologist  
  5. “With Writers’ Eyes: Perceptions and Change in Manuscript Review Procedures.”
    Rhetoric Review
  6. “Refereed Publication in Composition Studies and CCC”
    Rhetoric Review
  7. Working with Faculty Writers
  8. “Academic Publication and Contingent Faculty: Establishing a Community of Scholars.”
    Geller and Eodice
  9. “The Case for Reviewing as Collaboration and Response.”
    Rhetoric Review
  10. “Writing by the Book, Writing beyond the Book.”
    Composition Studies
  11. “How to Peer Review and Revise Manuscripts Submitted for Publication in Academic Nursing …
    International Journal of Nursing Studies  
  12. “Bias in Peer Review.”
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology  
  13. “Writing a Good Peer Review to Improve Scholarship: What Editors Value and Authors Find H…
    Social Work Education  
  14. College Composition and Communication
  15. “The Future of Scholarly Publishing.”
    Modern Language Association
  16. “Advice for Authors, Reviewers, Publishers, and Editors of Literary Scholarship.”
    Modern Language Association
  17. “Statement on Electronic Publication.”
    Modern Language Association
  18. “Report on Evaluating Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion.”
    Modern Language Association
  19. “Navigating the Peer-Review Process: Reviewers’ Suggestions for a Manuscript.”
    Journal of Advertising Research  
  20. Rhetoric Society Quarterly
  21. “The Case of the ‘Unfair’ Review: Ethical Issues from an Editor’s File.”
    The American Sociologist  
  22. “Methodologies of Peer and Editorial Review: Changing Practices.”
    College Composition and Communication
  23. How Writing Faculty Write: Strategies for Process, Product, and Productivity
  24. “Peer Review in the Tenure and Promotion Process.”
    College Composition and Communication
  25. Pedagogy
  26. “Peer Review Motivation Frames: A Qualitative Approach.”
    European Management Journal