TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
I'm sorry, but I have not been able to read this mailing list in some
time and, therefore, did not see the original letter on peer reviews.
But I read Paul's negative comments about it. While, yes, peer review
*can* turn into character assination, peer review *is* a valid means
for a manager to judge an employee's performance. Technical writers
and editors do not usually work alone. Their work most often depends
on other's work and vice versa. Their ability to manage whatever
project they are working on depends on their ability to work with
others on the team. Therefore, the other team members' feedback is
valuable. Of course, it is the manager's responsibility, then, to
consider the possibility that a team member may think that he or she
is helping him/herself by giving inaccurate feedback about another
team member. And, while peer review is a valid tool, a manager should
*never* use it as the single means of judging how well a writer or
editor performed on a project. Beth
