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.
In article <9506272200 -dot- AA05114 -at- mailhost -dot- ElSegundoCA -dot- ATTGIS -dot- COM>,
>CALL FOR OPINIONS (damn sure this bunch will have opinions):
> Have any of you experienced successful peer review
> operations? Unsuccessful?
Unsuccessful, for the most part. Peer edits can catch superficial
problems, but most peer edits don't work for an in-depth edit. The
=only= time I've ever had a peer edit work was when the other writer was
also an editor--and wasn't afraid to take the time to do it right.
Other problem: It's sometimes difficult for a "peer" to be honest. Who
wants to offend the person you eat lunch with? Who wants to trash
someone's work when s/he will get to edit yours? Etc. etc. etc.
Last problem: Just because someone is a good writer, doesn't mean s/he's
a decent editor. I know several good writers that aren't good editors
(and vice-versa).
Nancy Hayes (nancyh -at- pmafire -dot- inel -dot- gov)
