Making knowledge in business communication: collaboration between editorial teams and authors.(COMMENTARY)

The Publications Board of the Association for Business Communication (ABC) sponsored a panel discussion, with the same title as this commentary, for the 2004 annual meeting of the ABC. The goal was to bring together editors and authors to share insights about the process of publishing one's work in the field of business communication.

The participants included the editors of four business communication journals (Debby Andrews [now former editor], Business Communication Quarterly [BCQ]; Steve Ralston, the Journal of Business Communication [JBC]; Charie Thralls and Mark Zachry, Technical Communication Quarterly [TCQ]; and Dorothy Winsor, the Journal of Business and Technical Communication [JBTC]), three authors who have published in those journals (Jackie Hartman, Colorado State University; Pris Rogers, University of Michigan; and Christine Uber Grosse, Thunderbird University), and one panelist who represented both groups (Lamar Reinsch, former editor of JBC, Georgetown University).The panelists were eager to share their advice, and it became apparent from the audience's response that many others could benefit from an inside look at the publishing process in our field.

This commentary is a distillation of the panelists' remarks. Whether you are an author, reviewer, associate editor, or editor--or someone planning to take on one of these roles--we hope that the collective wisdom represented below will make the work of creating knowledge in business communication smoother, more inspiring, and more successful for you.

Making knowledge in business communication is indeed a collaborative enterprise. For all four journals represented on this panel, and for most peer-reviewed academic journals, there are essentially four sources of influence on a work under consideration: the author, the editor, manuscript reviewers (which may include associate editors), and the copyediting and production staff. By definition, this makes the act of publishing one's work a highly collaborative venture.

How much the editorial staff and reviewers can influence a study can vary greatly from case to case and from journal to journal. For example, depending on the manuscript, Debby Andrews of BCQ would assume a "wide range of positions, from the almost hands off to a highly invasive strategy" that made her, "to a very real extent, a coauthor." Dorothy Winsor of JBTC gives "more or less feedback, depending on the clarity of the reviews and the experience of the author," highlighting, in any case, "what's probably most important" for the author to do. Charie Thralls and Mark Zachry of TCQ "are committed to playing a very active role in helping authors produce the highest quality research for the field," which typically takes the form of helping authors interpret reviewers' comments and cultivate the most promising elements of their manuscripts.

Steve Ralston of JBC challenged the appropriateness of the word collaboration as a label for the editor-author relationship. He preferred the term coproduction, not wanting in any way to be perceived as a coauthor. And yet, as both he and Jackie Hartman brought out, in at least one case Ralston played a major role in helping an author make one kind of contribution to the field instead of another. Hartman had conducted a study of internal communication in two organizations, using locus groups as her primary research method. The reviewers selected for her manuscript had trouble accepting Hartman's research approach. Through phone calls and emails, Ralston advised Hartman to turn her article into a commentary piece about the usefulness of focus groups as a research methodology. Hartman regarded this process as "collaborative" and much appreciated Ralston's willingness to help her see in her paper what JBC readers would find most valuable.

An important point made by the panelists, in fact, is that editors have, as a rule, the most reliable sense of what their readers will find interesting, significant, and convincing. Much of editors' influence takes the form of helping authors create studies that will draw the best response from the scholarly community in business communication--a community that, because it is so varied, can be hard to accommodate. Editors can also help the author make sense of "mixed reviews," explaining what might have caused the contradictory responses (sometimes it is because the paper itself is unfocused) and pointing the way to a workable solution (Thralls and Zachry).

Although editors, and sometimes associate editors, do the most one-on-one work with authors, the reviewers recruited for a given manuscript can have a profound impact as well on an author's ultimate contribution to the field. Beyond advising whether a manuscript should be accepted, accepted with revisions, revised and resubmitted, or rejected, reviewers indicate how a manuscript is likely to be received by the given readership, or by subsets of that readership, and can often provide an enormous amount of help to an author. Winsor noted that JBTC reviewers "consistently send back two, three, or more single-spaced pages of comments and suggestions," and the other editors reported similar efforts from their reviewers. This generosity is particularly striking given the fact that in academic publishing, reviewers are not remunerated in any way (in fact, as Andrews noted, the editors themselves are volunteers whose only compensation is coverage of expenses and some release time from teaching).

It is a fact, however, that reviews can sometimes be discouraging and/or mistaken. Perhaps a particular reviewer had an ax to grind; perhaps he or she was simply short on time. Editors appoint editorial review boards in hopes of recruiting reliable, conscientious reviewers, but some reviewers--even those who have become well-known researchers in the field--are not cut out to be supportive collaborators with authors. In these cases, editors "can quietly cycle [such reviewers] off [review] boards at the end of appointed terms" (Thralls and Zachry), while, in the meantime, providing a more balanced viewpoint in their own cover letters to authors. In general, though, the editors on the panel sincerely applauded the work of their reviewers, calling them "the unsung heroes of our field" (Thralls and Zachry) who serve the profession "simply out of the goodness of their hearts" (Winsor). Thralls and Zachry even proposed creating some kind of award for those "who go the extra mile in writing reviews."

The editors on the panel were also careful to note the contributions made by their editorial assistants, such as Lori Peterson at JBTC or Phil Parisi at TCQ. Although these support staff rarely make major substantive recommendations, they play an invaluable role in making the published work coherent, faithful to the authors' intent, and clear of mechanical problems. They also smooth the collaboration between editorial and production personnel, attending to final format, copyright forms, permissions, and the like. Staff members of the journal's publisher, such as Sage and Lawrence Erlbaum, also ensure a polished, professional look for published manuscripts. Wise authors will notice, appreciate, and politely receive the assistance provided by these participants in the publication process.

There are both interpersonal and intellectual dimensions to the collaborative work between authors and editorial teams. A common theme in all participants' remarks was that better harmony and better published work can result when authors and editors take advantage of less formalized means of communication than official letters or e-mails and reviews. As Pris Rogers pointed out, the genres that are built into the publication process--the author's submission cover letter or e-mail, the editor's or editorial assistant's acknowledgment of receipt, the reviews, the editor's decision on the manuscript, and the author's response--are "lean media" that involve "rather standardized moves and formats" and asynchronous interaction. Even though many of these may be sent as e-mails, they can nevertheless seem unilateral and dehumanizing; they tend to foreground the editor's "gatekeeping" role (Andrews, Ralston, Rogers) and the author's supplicant role.

By contrast, an occasional phone call can enable these colleagues to discuss more informally and help them find their way to the best version of the paper. First on Rogers's list of ways to enhance the editor-author collaboration was "Pick up the phone." Doing so in one instance resolved a major point of dispute between Rogers and an editor, whereas not doing so in another instance led to a couple of major revisions that Rogers felt could have been expedited had she simply called the editor.

Christine Uber Grosse, caught in the awkward situation of having lost the editor's and reviewers' responses to a manuscript she had submitted to BCQ, finally emailed Andrews a personal note requesting another copy of the response--but not before agonizing over what Andrews's reaction might be: "We didn't have a personal relationship," Grosse explained, and she worried, "What would Debby think of me?" Would such a query "affect her opinion of me and my work?" Andrews gladly resent the materials, and Grosse's piece was ultimately published. Grosse "learned a lot about [her] editor--her editorial skills, her organizational talents, and the depth of her humanity." She also "learned much about how to write and encourage writers."

Jackie Hartman had a similar reaction when working with Steve Ralston on her focus-groups commentary. Before talking with Ralston by phone and e-mail about her manuscript, Hartman had "considered it 'cheating'" to contact an editor outside the formal process of communication. She learned that there is much to be gained from interpersonal dialog with one's editor beyond the formal means dictated by the review process.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates