TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
First thoughts. Peer review and copyediting are not usually synonymous. But,
you have to do what you have to do. Since there is no copyeditor, everyone
should use the same style guide, the same dictionary, and the same acronyms
list. It should be a two-pass process. Get the technical accuracy out of the
way first-the peer review. Then, you can efficiently start on the
copyediting. Someone will have to be responsible for resolving the
inevitable differences of opinion about content and usability. Someone will
have to be responsible for resolving differences of opinion about styles.
From: techwr-l-bounces+billdarnall=writingandtraining -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
[mailto:techwr-l-bounces+billdarnall=writingandtraining -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- c
om] On Behalf Of David Renn
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 1:49 PM
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: Peer Editing Among Corporate Tech Writing Teams
I work in a Tech Writing Department of about 3 managers and 14 writers. Our
team used to have a dedicated copyeditor for the whole team. We're now
restructuring the department so that all authors are responsible for peer
reviews in place of having a copyeditor.
Have any of you ever had any experience where peer editing was implemented
across a team of multiple tech writers---whether small or large teams?
If so, would you be able to shed any light on the methodology your team
implemented for the peer review process; that is, the team structure, how
tasks were assigned/divvied up, what peer reviewers were required to review
for, how team ensured the process was implemented appropriately, or
anything else related?
And also, do you have any thoughts as to:
- the pros and cons of implementing peer editing in multiple-author tech
- what it might take to create a well-oiled peer editing machine where
all authors know and understand their role/responsibilities and are
dedicated to their assignments;
- any success/failure stories in general.
Thanks, and I look forward to hearing about your experiences!
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and
content development | http://techwhirl.com