Peer Review vs. Editorial Review – Very Different Animals

As technical writers, we’re often subjected to reviews by peers and editors. Although many people tend to lump these together, the two concepts are quite different.

A true peer review exposes your work to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field documented by your work. It’s not editing. Editing is done for clarity and to make sure the author stays within the scope of work.

A peer reviewer assesses content for its technical accuracy. An editor reviews a document for its adherence to a specification.

Editors may review a document to determine if it communicates its purpose effectively. They also determine if the document conforms to style guidelines, not only ensuring good grammar, punctuation and style, but also validating organization and conformance to internal policies.

Technical writers normally don’t develop content to promote their own point of view. They express information in terms of their sponsor’s point of view, and it should be edited with this in mind. It’s almost like ghost writing.

A peer review process is applied to an original work subject to interpretation. Showing such work to others who possess a similar scientific or technical background increases the probability that errors in the research, the assumption, or the data will be identified and addressed.

===== Marc DiGiuseppe, Senior Consultant, Documentation Strategies