Visual representations of publication trajectories tend to use hypothetical examples. However, representing the actual trajectories of manuscripts helps reveal the complexity of assessing and revising manuscripts. This presentation shares how graphical representations of manuscript text histories were developed and how this can reveal otherwise hidden processes of textual production.
The importance of the process that manuscripts go through in their trajectories toward publication has been increasingly highlighted in research examining the experiences of authors writing for academic publication. However, visual representations of these trajectories have tended to use hypothetical examples (e.g., Burrough-Boenisch, 2003; Weller, 2001) rather than examples grounded in empirical analysis of manuscript versions and correspondence data. Visually representing the actual trajectories of manuscripts helps to reveal potentially occluded complexity such as the extent of changes made to manuscripts across their trajectories, the amount of revision and evaluation work that goes into assessing and revising manuscripts, and the "brokers" (official and unofficial) (Lillis & Curry, 2006, p. 4) who shape them. This presentation shares how graphical representations of manuscript text histories were developed for six manuscripts published by Japan-based English-language teachers. Findings include information about time to publication, the number of manuscript versions evaluated by official brokers (editors and reviewers), that manuscripts may be submitted to and evaluated by more than one journal, and how the manuscript versions visible to official brokers do not necessarily represent a complete picture of how the texts are transformed during their trajectories. The potential for this method of data representation to explore other text production processes is discussed, particularly in terms of revealing otherwise hidden processes of text production. Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2003). Shapers of published NNS research articles. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 223–243. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00037-7 Lillis, T. M., & Curry, M. J. (2006). Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts. Written Communication, 23(3), 3–35. http://doi.org/10.1177/0741088305283754 Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and Weaknesses. Medford, NJ: ASIST (American Society for Information Science and Technology) Monograph Series.
Link to presentation slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1EIXr1KwdDRzewaLuNtxlfF5YF0UOvcxw_z2RoWhET5Y/edit?usp=sharing
