A Study of the Practices and Responsibilities of Scholarly Peer Review in Rhetoric and Composition

References

1. Arrington Phillip “Some Thoughts on Changing the Review Process for Academic Journals: A Personal Exploration.” Rhetoric Review 13 2 1995 249 53
   [Google Scholar]
2. Artze-Vega Isis et al. “Privileging Pedagogy: Composition, Rhetoric, and Faculty Development.” College Composition and Communication 65 1 2013 162 84
   [Google Scholar]
3. Berkenkotter Carol “The Power and the Perils of Peer Review.” Rhetoric Review 13 2 1995 245 48
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bowen Donald D. et al. “Improving Manuscript Evaluation Procedures.” American Psychologist 27 3 1972 221 25
   [Google Scholar]
5. Brackbill Yvonne Korten Frances “Journal Reviewing Practices: Authors’ and APA Members’ Suggestions for Revision.” American Psychologist 25 10 1970 937 40
   [Google Scholar]
6. Conference on College Composition and Communication “Scholarship in Rhetoric, Writing, and Composition: Guidelines for Faculty, Deans, and Chairs,” CCCC March 2018 cccc.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/scholarshipincomp Accessed 4 Apr. 2018
   [Google Scholar]
7. Cox Michelle Brunjes Ann “Guiding Principles for Supporting Faculty as Writers at a Teaching-Mission Institution.” Geller and Eodice 191 209
   [Google Scholar]
8. Day Michael et al. “What We Really Value: Redefining Scholarly Engagement in Tenure and Promotion Protocols.” College Composition and Communication 65 1 2013 185 208
   [Google Scholar]
9. Finke Ronald A. “Recommendations for Contemporary Editorial Practices.” American Psychologist 45 5 1990 669 70
   [Google Scholar]
10. Fontaine Sheryl I. “With Writers’ Eyes: Perceptions and Change in Manuscript Review Procedures.” Rhetoric Review 13 2 1995 259 64
    [Google Scholar]
11. Gebhardt Richard C. “Refereed Publication in Composition Studies and CCC” Rhetoric Review 13 2 1995 238 44
    [Google Scholar]
12. Geller Anne Ellen Eodice Michele editors Working with Faculty Writers Utah State UP 2013
    [Google Scholar]
13. Guglielmo Letizia Lewis Gaillet Lynée “Academic Publication and Contingent Faculty: Establishing a Community of Scholars.” Geller and Eodice 210 27
    [Google Scholar]
14. Hunter Susan “The Case for Reviewing as Collaboration and Response.” Rhetoric Review 13 2 1995 265 72
    [Google Scholar]
15. Johnson Kristine “Writing by the Book, Writing beyond the Book.” Composition Studies 45 2 2017 55 72
    [Google Scholar]
16. Kottner Jan Norman Ian “How to Peer Review and Revise Manuscripts Submitted for Publication in Academic Nursing Journals.” International Journal of Nursing Studies 64 C 2016 A1 A3
    [Google Scholar]
17. Lee Carole J. et al. “Bias in Peer Review.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 1 2013 2 17
    [Google Scholar]
18. McLaughlin Hugh et al. “Writing a Good Peer Review to Improve Scholarship: What Editors Value and Authors Find Helpful.” Social Work Education 34 3 2015 249 57
    [Google Scholar]
19. Micciche Laura R. Carr Allison D. “Toward Graduate-Level Writing Instruction.” College Composition and Communication 62 3 2011 477 501
    [Google Scholar]
20. Modern Language Association Ad Hoc Committee on the Future of Scholarly Publishing “The Future of Scholarly Publishing.” Modern Language Association 2002 https://www.mla.org/Resources/Research/Surveys-Reports-and-Other-Documents/Publishing-and-Scholarship/The-Future-of-Scholarly-Publishing
    [Google Scholar]
21. Modern Language Association Committee on Academic and Freedom Professional Rights and Responsibilities “Advice for Authors, Reviewers, Publishers, and Editors of Literary Scholarship.” Modern Language Association 2016 https://www.mla.org/Resources/Research/Surveys-Reports-and-Other-Documents/Publishing-and-Scholarship/Advice-for-Authors-Reviewers-Publishers-and-Editors-of-Literary-Scholarship
    [Google Scholar]
22. Modern Language Association Committee on Information Technology “Statement on Electronic Publication.” Modern Language Association 2015 https://www.mla.org/About-Us/Governance/Committees/Committee-Listings/Professional-Issues/Committee-on-Information-Technology/Statement-on-Electronic-Publication
    [Google Scholar]
23. Modern Language Association Task Force on Evaluating Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion “Report on Evaluating Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion.” Modern Language Association 2007 https://www.mla.org/Resources/Research/Surveys-Reports-and-Other-Documents/Publishing-and-Scholarship/Report-on-Evaluating-Scholarship-for-Tenure-and-Promotion
    [Google Scholar]
24. Robson Karen et al. “Navigating the Peer-Review Process: Reviewers’ Suggestions for a Manuscript.” Journal of Advertising Research 55 1 2015 9 17
    [Google Scholar]
25. Roen Duane H. et al. “Revising for Publication: Advice to Graduate Students and Other Junior Scholars.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 25 1995 237 46
    [Google Scholar]
26. Schneider Joseph W. “The Case of the ‘Unfair’ Review: Ethical Issues from an Editor’s File.” The American Sociologist 21 1 1990 88 95
    [Google Scholar]
27. Selfe Cynthia L. Hawisher Gail E. “Methodologies of Peer and Editorial Review: Changing Practices.” College Composition and Communication 63 4 2012 672 98
    [Google Scholar]
28. Tulley Christine E. How Writing Faculty Write: Strategies for Process, Product, and Productivity Utah State UP 2018
    [Google Scholar]
29. Weiser Irwin “Peer Review in the Tenure and Promotion Process.” College Composition and Communication 63 4 2012 645 72
    [Google Scholar]
30. Wells Jaclyn M. Söderlund Lars “Preparing Graduate Students for Academic Publishing: Results from a Study of Published Rhetoric and Composition Scholars.” Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture 18 1 2018 131 56
    [Google Scholar]
31. Zaharie Monica Aniela Luminiţa Osoian Codruţa “Peer Review Motivation Frames: A Qualitative Approach.” European Management Journal 34 1 2016 69 79
    [Google Scholar]