Reply: In defence of the journal

Subject: Reply: In defence of the journal
From: Geoff Hart <geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 09:38:17 LCL

Several writers have posted to complain about the quality of the
journal _Technical Communication_. I'll concede that there are more
poorly written articles than I'd prefer, but on the whole, I like it
and read it cover to cover. It's a rare issue that doesn't teach me
several things that I can use in my own work (the quarterly columns at
the back are particularly helpful), and in most issues, there are at
least two articles that I photocopy for my literature files. A few
more points for the naysayers to ponder:

1. Typos etc.: There's a widespread misunderstanding of what a journal
editor does, particularly among technical editors and writers. The
most important job is to assemble a diverse, technically correct
spectrum of papers; it is _not_ to edit the articles in the
conventional sense of improving (?) style and presentation. Anyone
who's ever edited a small monthly newsletter while trying to do their
"real" job knows just how tough it is to get the work done, let alone
do it flawlessly (and if you're one of these people, please tell your
own horror stories to the list so they'll see what I mean).

2. Journal editors are rarely paid. I don't know if Frank Smith
collected an honorarium beyond his expenses, but I doubt it paid him
minimum wage (even if you don't allow for overtime). You should note
that Frank's address is "c/o Technical Communication Services", which
suggests he's working for a living and journal editing in what time
remains. Not easy to do at all, and damn near impossible to do well.

3. Dull, academic style: In case you haven't noticed, the quality of
the writing has improved dramatically over the past few years. Yes,
some stuffy academy-speak still gets through, but don't forget, Frank
can't send articles back for rewrites based on style... the journal
has no fixed style guideline, and tight production schedules don't
permit this. Worse yet, it's the job of the peer reviewers to point
out such problems and ask the author to correct them; if the peers are
also from the academy, they write in the same style. Finally, as
editor, criticizing style rather than content also risks offending
reviewers or regular contributors, leaving you with an empty journal.
The lack of a fixed style can be very good (consider Nancy Allison,
Fern Rook, Don Bush and William Horton, among others) or very bad
(pick your own favorites). The lack of a fixed style appears to be a
necessary evil for most journals.

Tech. Comm. could definitely be improved, but rather than
complaining, why not do something about it? Send in what you consider
a _good_ article, written in active voice and in a conversational
tone... just make sure you've got your facts straight so you'll get
past the reviewers. I'll volunteer to peer review the occasional
article before submission (but please arrange in advance... my
workload is pretty high, and despite my tendency to mouth off on any
topic, I'm not an expert in everything and don't consider myself as
such). If you don't feel up to writing something, put together a
petition for the new editor to address certain specific topics, and
ask for volunteer reviewers (or volunteer yourself to coordinate a
special issue). We've got the talent here, and sometimes the time...
let's use them.

All in all, we could do a whole lot worse with our journal. If we want
to do better, we've got to take responsibility for doing it ourselves.
One final thought: Many professional societies (e.g., the
Entomological Society of America, the Canadian government's national
research council journals, etc.) pay for a full-time editorial staff,
who can devote the time to some of the issues raised above. If enough
of us feel that this is a problem, I'd suggest that we put together a
petition (or form letter) that we can send to the society itself,
proposing this solution along with style guidelines for the journal.
(I won't volunteer to direct this, because I'm overcommitted already
and don't think the problem is so bad; I _will_ throw in my two cents
if someone else wants to move ahead with this.)

-- Geoff Hart #8^{)} (End of rant.)


Previous by Author: Reply: Metaphors
Next by Author: Reply: In defence of Japan
Previous by Thread: Re: Deborah Tannen's Work
Next by Thread: Reply: In defence of Japan


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads