Peer editing for journal submissions to Communications of the ACM (Toole) and Peitho (Gores)
For this assignment, I selected an existing paper that could be submitted to an academic journal. I traded papers with a colleague (Gores), and we conducted peer edits. There were several elements of this that were new for me: selecting a journal to send a manuscript, editing a lengthy paper, editing to fit specific style requirements, and writing a response explaining my revisions.
At 15 pages long, the article I peer-reviewed was the longest piece I have ever edited. I cycled between rounds of comprehensive and copy edits and used Microsoft Word to track changes and add comments. Rude and Eaton (2011) caution editors not to change things without reason (pg. 147), and my goal was to make suggestions only if I could support them with a grammatical reason. I fulfilled a course objective of revising for “tone, clarity, conciseness, and continuity.” Reviewing the article with this framework helped me prioritize recommendations, rather than marking every suggestion I noticed.
As far as revising my own paper, it helped to have someone else look over my work. In his biannual survey of editors, Henson (2007) reminds the reader that “the more you write the better you will become” (pg. 786). Peer reviews can also be instructive. Gores provided specific feedback that would strengthen the document’s effectiveness. I was selective in which suggestions I implemented, but this had more to do with time constraints than anything else. Composing a response to Gores required me to think critically about how and why I applied some changes and not others.
References
Henson, K. T. (2007). Writing for professional publication: Steps to excellence. Phi Delta Kappan, 781-786.
Rude, C. D. & A. Eaton. (2011). Technical Editing (5th edition). Longman.