Skip to content
2018
Volume 71, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0010-096X
  • E-ISSN: 1939-9006

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.58680/ccc201930297
2019-09-01
2024-03-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

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 CCCRhetoric 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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.58680/ccc201930297
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error