Making Knowledge in Business Communication: Collaboration Between Editorial Teams and Authors

Abstract

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 bring together editors and authors 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 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 an reviewer, associate editor, or editor--or someone planning 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, inspiring, and successful for you. Making knowledge in business communication is indeed a enterprise. For all four journals represented on this panel, and for most peer-reviewed academic journals, there essentially four sources of influence on a work under consideration: the 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 venture. How much the editorial staff and reviewers can influence a study can vary greatly from case case and from journal journal. For example, depending on the manuscript, Debby Andrews of BCQ would assume a wide range of positions, from the almost hands off a highly invasive strategy that made her, to a very real extent, a 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 for the author do. Charie Thralls and Mark Zachry of TCQ are committed 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 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 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 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 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. …