Document review practices in the research and development functions of many pharmaceutical companies can be frustrating and inefficient, at least in part because these practices are poorly managed. Although the literature on review practice is fairly robust, there is a disjuncture between what researchers know and how reviewers work. The author draws on his experience as a consultant and trainer to many pharmaceutical companies to outline the causes and effects of poor review practice. He offers recommendations to enhance the value and increase the efficiency of reviews.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
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 Gemert, 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.
