Reply: In defence of the journal

[Geoff Hart <geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>]

        Several writers have posted to complain about the quality of the
     journal _Technical Communication_. I'll concede that there are more
     poorly written articles than I'd prefer, but on the whole, I like it
     and read it cover to cover. It's a rare issue that doesn't teach me
     several things that I can use in my own work (the quarterly columns at
     the back are particularly helpful), and in most issues, there are at
     least two articles that I photocopy for my literature files. A few
     more points for the naysayers to ponder:

     1. Typos etc.: There's a widespread misunderstanding of what a journal
     editor does, particularly among technical editors and writers. The
     most important job is to assemble a diverse, technically correct
     spectrum of papers; it is _not_ to edit the articles in the
     conventional sense of improving (?) style and presentation. Anyone
     who's ever edited a small monthly newsletter while trying to do their
     "real" job knows just how tough it is to get the work done, let alone
     do it flawlessly (and if you're one of these people, please tell your
     own horror stories to the list so they'll see what I mean).

     2. Journal editors are rarely paid. I don't know if Frank Smith
     collected an honorarium beyond his expenses, but I doubt it paid him
     minimum wage (even if you don't allow for overtime). You should note
     that Frank's address is "c/o Technical Communication Services", which
     suggests he's working for a living and journal editing in what time
     remains. Not easy to do at all, and damn near impossible to do well.

     3. Dull, academic style: In case you haven't noticed, the quality of
     the writing has improved dramatically over the past few years. Yes,
     some stuffy academy-speak still gets through, but don't forget, Frank
     can't send articles back for rewrites based on style... the journal
     has no fixed style guideline, and tight production schedules don't
     permit this. Worse yet, it's the job of the peer reviewers to point
     out such problems and ask the author to correct them; if the peers are
     also from the academy, they write in the same style. Finally, as
     editor, criticizing style rather than content also risks offending
     reviewers or regular contributors, leaving you with an empty journal.
     The lack of a fixed style can be very good (consider Nancy Allison,
     Fern Rook, Don Bush and William Horton, among others) or very bad
     (pick your own favorites). The lack of a fixed style appears to be a
     necessary evil for most journals.

        Tech. Comm. could definitely be improved, but rather than
     complaining, why not do something about it? Send in what you consider
     a _good_ article, written in active voice and in a conversational
     tone... just make sure you've got your facts straight so you'll get
     past the reviewers. I'll volunteer to peer review the occasional
     article before submission (but please arrange in advance... my
     workload is pretty high, and despite my tendency to mouth off on any
     topic, I'm not an expert in everything and don't consider myself as
     such). If you don't feel up to writing something, put together a
     petition for the new editor to address certain specific topics, and
     ask for volunteer reviewers (or volunteer yourself to coordinate a
     special issue). We've got the talent here, and sometimes the time...
     let's use them.

     All in all, we could do a whole lot worse with our journal. If we want
     to do better, we've got to take responsibility for doing it ourselves.
     One final thought: Many professional societies (e.g., the
     Entomological Society of America, the Canadian government's national
     research council journals, etc.) pay for a full-time editorial staff,
     who can devote the time to some of the issues raised above. If enough
     of us feel that this is a problem, I'd suggest that we put together a
     petition (or form letter) that we can send to the society itself,
     proposing this solution along with style guidelines for the journal.
     (I won't volunteer to direct this, because I'm overcommitted already
     and don't think the problem is so bad; I _will_ throw in my two cents
     if someone else wants to move ahead with this.)

     -- Geoff Hart   #8^{)}  (End of rant.)