Affiliation:
1. University of Delaware
Abstract
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.
Subject
General Business, Management and Accounting,Communication,Business and International Management
Reference8 articles.
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. & McCulley, G. (2000). Knowledge management and pharmaceutical development teams: Using writing to guide science. Joint issue of Technical Communication, 47, 22-34.
3. Technical Editing Online: The Quest for Transparent Technology
4. Kleimann, S. D. (1991). The complexity of workplace review. Technical Communication, 38, 520-526.
5. Kleinman, P. (1999, July). Key elements in preparing a quality CMC submission. Regulatory Affairs Focus, pp. 32-35.
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献