Improving Document Review Practices in Pharmaceutical Companies

Journal of Business and Technical Communication

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 439-473

  Bernhardt, Stephen A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

Author keywords

Documentation; Drug development; Editing; Pharmaceutical writing; Review; Writing

Indexed keywords

EID: 0242507595     PISSN: 10506519     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1050651903255345     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Bernhardt, S. A. (1995). Technology-driven documentation in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Computer Systems Documentation, 19(4), 13-18.
2. Bernhardt, S. A. (1999). Using technology to support global drug development teams. In C. Lovitt & D. Goswami (Eds.), Exploring the rhetoric of international professional communication: An agenda for teachers and researchers (pp. 55-80). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
3. Bernhardt, S. A., & McCulley, G. (2000). Knowledge management and pharmaceutical development teams: Using writing to guide science. Joint issue of Technical Communication, 47, 22-34.
4. Bonk, R. (1998). Medical writing in drug development: A practical guide for pharmaceutical research. Binghamton, NY: Haworth.
5. Couture, B., & Rymer, J. (1989). Interactive writing on the job: Definitions and implications of "collaboration." In M. Kogen (Ed.), Writing in the business professions (pp. 73-93). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
6. Couture, B., & Rymer, J. (1993). Situational exigence: Composing processes on the job by writer's role and task value. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace. New research perspectives (pp. 4-20). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
7. Dayton, D. (1998). Technical editing online: The quest for transparent technology. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 28(1), 3-38.
8. Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2000). Reconstructing the relationships between universities and society through action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 85-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. Hackos, J. (1994). Managing your documentation projects. New York: John Wiley.
10. Henry, J. (2000). Writing workplace cultures: An archaeology of professional writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
11. Katz, S. (1998). The dynamics of writing review: Opportunities for growth and change in the workplace (Vol. 5 in ATTW Contemporary Studies in Technical Communication). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
12. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 567-605). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Kleimann, S. D. (1991). The complexity of workplace review. Technical Communication, 38, 520-526.
14. Kleimann, S. D. (1993). The reciprocal relationship of workplace culture and review. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives (pp. 56-70). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
15. Kleinman, P. (1999, July). Key elements in preparing a quality CMC submission. Regulatory Affairs Focus, pp. 32-35.
16. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17. MacKinnon, J. (1993). Becoming a rhetor: Developing writing ability in a mature, writing-intensive organization. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives (pp. 41-56). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
18. Palmer, J. S., & Killingsworth, M. J. (2002). Research and consulting in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 11, 389-409.
19. Paradis, J., Dobrin, D., & Miller, R. (1985). Writing at Exxon ITD: Notes on the writing environment of an R&D organization. In L. Odell & D. Goswami (Eds.), Writing in nonacademic settings (pp. 281-308). New York: Guilford.
20. Sellen, A. J., & Harper, R. H. R. (2002). The myth of the paperless office. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Shrage, M. (1995). No more teams! Mastering the dynamics of creative collaboration. New York: Doubleday.
22. Shwom, B. L., & Hirsch, P. L. (1994). Managing the drafting process: Creating a model for the workplace. The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 17(2), 1-10.
23. Spilker, B. (1991). A guide to clinical drug research. Smithville, TX: Raven.
24. van der Geest, T., & van Gernert, L. (1997). Review as a method for improving professional texts. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11, 433-450.
25. Wojahn, P., Neuwirth, C., & Bullock, B. (1998). Effects of interfaces for annotation on communication in a collaborative task. In C. Karat, A. Lund, J. Coutaz, & J. Karat (Eds.), Human factors in computing systems: Computer human interaction '98 conference proceedings (pp. 456-463). New York: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Press.