Examining editing in the workplace from the author's point of view: Results of an online survey

Technical Communication

Volumn 55, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 111-139

  Eaton, Angela ^a,b,c   Brewer, Pamela Estes ^d   Portewig, Tiffany Craft ^e   Davidson, Cynthia R ^a,b  

^a TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b STC ^*

^c Association for the Teachers of Technical Writing

^d APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e AUBURN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 44449174002     PISSN: 00493155     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Abshire, G. M., and D. Culberson. 1985. "Editing is editing is editing" or, by any other name, the smell is sweet. Journal of technical writing and communication 15:279-82.
2. Adler, L. J., and H. Lenane. 2003. E-editing for global audiences. In Proceedings of the Society for Technical Communication 50th annual conference. Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Communication pp. 433-437.
3. Albers, M. J. 2000. The technical editor and document databases: What the future may hold. Technical communication quarterly 9:191-206.
4. Bernhardt, S. A. 2003. Improving document review practices in pharmaceutical companies. Journal of business and technical communication 17:439-473.
5. Bostian, L. R. 1986. Working with writers. Scholarly publishing 17:119-126.
6. Bradburn, N. N. 1992. Presidential address: A response to the non-response problem. Public opinion quarterly 56:391-397.
7. Briggs, N. A. 1975. Editing by dialogue. In Technical editing: Principles and practices, Ed. L. M. Zook. Washington, DC: Society for Technical Communication, pp. 56-61.
8. Buehler, M. F. 2003. Situational editing: A rhetorical approach for the technical editor. Technical communication 50:458-464.
9. Collins, W. L., and S. M. J. Lester. 1997. Writer-editor interactions: What works? In Proceedings of the 44th annual conference of the Society for Technical Communication. Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Communication, pp. 477-478.
10. Corbin, M., P. Moell, and M. Boyd. 2002. Technical editing as quality assurance: Adding value to content. Technical communication 49:286-300.
11. Dayton, D. 2003. Electronic editing in technical communication: A survey of practices and attitudes. Technical communication 50:192-206.
12. _. 2004. Electronic editing in technical communication: The compelling logics of local contexts. Technical communication 51:86-101.
13. de Leeuw, E., and W. de Heer. 2002. Trends in household survey nonresponse: A longitudinal and international comparison. In Survey nonresponse, Ed. R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, and R. J. A. Little. New York, NY: Wiley, pp. 41-54.
14. Dey, E. L. 1997. Working with low survey response rates: The efficacy of weighing adjustments. Research in higher education 38:215-227.
15. Doumont, J. 2002. Gentle feedback that encourages learning. Intercom February:30-40.
16. Dragga, S., and G. Gong. 1989. Editing: The design of rhetoric. Amityville, NY: Baywood.
17. Dukes, E. P. 1972. The simple joys of editing. Technical communication 19:7-8.
18. _. 1975. The art of editing. In Technical editing: Principles and practices, Ed. L. M. Zook. Washington, DC: Society for Technical Communication, pp. 62-66.
19. Eaton, A., P. E. Brewer, T. C. Portewig, and C. R. Davidson. 2006. Research on editing from the author's viewpoint. In Proceedings of the Society for Technical Communication 53rd annual conference. Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Communication, pp. 1-6.
20. Fourdrinier, S. 1975. The editor as a teacher. Technical editing: Principles and practices, Ed. L. M. Zook. Washington, DC: Society for Technical Communication, pp. 67-70.
21. Fraenkel, J. R., and N. E. Wallen. 2003. How to design and evaluate research in education, 5th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
22. Frey, L. R., C. H. Botan, and G. L. Kreps. 2000. Investigating communication: An introduction to research methods, 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
23. Gerich, C. 1994. How technical editors enrich the revision process. Technical communication 41:59-70.
24. Green, S., and N. Salkind. 2005. Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
25. Grove, L. K. 1990. The editor as ally. Technical communication 37:235-328.
26. Mackiewicz, J., and K. Riley. 2003. The technical editor as diplomat: Linguistic strategies for balancing clarity and politeness. Technical communication 50:83-94.
27. Mazzatenta, E. 1975. GM research improves chemistry between science writers, editors. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Technical Communication Conference. Washington, DC, pp. 163-167.
28. McNeill, A. 2001. Technical editing 101. Intercom December: 10-11.
29. Neuwirth, C. M., R. Chandhok, D. Charney, P. Wojahn, and L. Kim. 1994. Distributed collaborative writing: A comparison of spoken and written modalities for reviewing and revising documents. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: Celebrating interdependence, Ed. B. Adelson, S. Dumais, J.R. Olson. New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 51-57.
30. Rude, C. 2002. Technical editing, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Longman.
31. _. 2006. Technical editing, 4th ed. New York, NY: Longman.
32. Sartoris, B. E. 1993. Editing to teach. In Proceedings of the Society for Technical Communication's 40th annual conference. Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Communication, pp. 179-182.
33. Smith, T. W. 1995. Trends in nonresponse rates. International journal of public opinion research 7:157-171.
34. Society for Technical Communication. 2005. Salary survey. Society for Technical Communication, http://www.stc.org/stcmembers/salarySurvey01.asp.
35. _. 2007a. Membership counts. Society for Technical Communication. http://www.stc.org/stcmembers/memberCounts01.asp.
36. _. 2007b. STC salary database. Society for Technical Communication. http://www.stc.org/stcmembers/salaryDatabase02.asp?ID=3.
37. Speck, B. W. 1991. Editorial authority in the author-editor relationship. Technical communication 38:300-315.
38. Stainton, E. M. 1978. A mixed bag: Getting along together. Scholarly publishing 9:149-158.
39. Steeh, C. G. 1981. Trends in nonresponse rates 1952-1979. Public opinion quarterly 59:66-77.
40. Stevens, M. 2000. Editing for ESL authors. The exchange: The newsletter of STC's Scientific Communication special interest group March:1-3.
41. Van Buren, R., and M. F. Buehler. 1980. The levels of edit, 2nd ed. Pasadena, CA: Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institutes of Technology.
42. Walkowski, D. 1991. Working successfully with technical experts-from their perspective. Technical communication 38:65-67.
43. Ward, M. 2006. More than 95% of e-mail is 'junk', http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5219554.stm.