Andrew Yim
I am a fifth-year PhD student in the Composition and Applied Linguistics (CAL) program at Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP). I first became interested in the field of writing center studies when working as an undergraduate tutor in the Purdue Writing Lab in spring 2015. Since then, I have held positions as a writing center tutor at DePaul University and worked as assistant director of two previous writing centers: (1) IUP, and (2) University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). Therefore, when I heard that The Peer Review (TPR) was looking for a graduate co-editor to start in spring 2022, I applied for the position. After being interviewed by the previous TPR board, I was offered a position and began in January 2022. I was drawn to TPR because they often work with first-time authors and commit to publishing their articles after extensive revisions. This experience has immensely grown my skills in mentorship and leadership over the past 2-3 years.
Generally, the other Graduate Co-editor and I were given a few submissions (e.g., articles, conversation shapers, book reviews, etc.) to review. We would both reach out to potential reviewers, asking for their feedback. Once reviewers returned their comments, these were given to writers, who would revise and resubmit. After a few rounds of editing and feedback, finalized articles would be published. During this process, I was always willing to meet with writers over Zoom to give additional guidance. For instance, I provided mentorship to a writer, Madeleine Cottle, on their Conversation Shaper entitled “Conversation Shaper: Utilizing Universal Design in the Writing Center”. The article was released in Issue 7.3 in Fall 2023. Publishing this piece opened up more research avenues within writing centers focused on universal design and neurodiversity, as future researchers will cite Madeleine’s article. This act ensures that scholars, like Madeleine, actively shape the Writing Center field.
Besides providing mentorship on articles, I gave presentations for my TPR work at International Writing Center Association (IWCA) and National Conference on Peer Tutoring in Writing (NCPTW). I first attended IWCA in Fall 2022 in Vancouver, Canada, as IWCA covered my registration and hotel costs. In October 2023, I presented with the other graduate co-editor at IWCA about our primary roles at TPR in a presentation titled “Graduate Students as Journal Editors: Role, Benefits, and Impact.” Furthermore, in November 2023 at NCPTW, the managing editor, a previous author I mentored, and myself presented on the conversation shaper genre. The presentation was titled “Conversation Shapers: How One Writing Center Journal Mentors Undergraduate, Graduate, and Early Career Professionals for Publication.” By presenting on my role and the publication process at these conferences, I connected with various audiences: (1) those unfamiliar with TPR, and (2) TPR regulars. For the former, I informed them about the benefits of publishing an article. Regarding the latter, we talked about their possible involvement as a reviewer or copy editor. Therefore, I learned the importance of attending conferences in person to build connections within the broader Writing Center community.
I also completed other tasks for the TPR editorial board for the past 2-3 years. I created MP3 recordings on 2 webpages on the TPR website for accessibility purposes: (1) TPR Guidelines for Reviewers, and (2) You’ve Gotten Feedback, Now What? I borrowed someone’s recording equipment and made multiple attempts to record my voice within a quiet setting. Afterwards, I sent these recordings to the web editor, who uploaded them to the website. I also recently recruited a few individuals to serve as copy editors for our Spring 2025 issue. Through shaping the mission along with the structures and practices of TPR, I came to understand that two elements are needed: (1) a strong team, and (2) delegating specific tasks. Without the dedication and teamwork amongst the current and future TPR team. I would have struggled during my tenure as Graduate Co-Editor.
For any incoming graduate editors, they will learn the art of interpreting, filtering, and conveying peer review feedback from multiple reviewers when mentoring authors. For example, for the past few months, I met with an author twice over Zoom to further develop their topic on four tutors’ narratives about working at an international writing center. The two reviewers wanted the writer to address the following: (1) expounding on the differences between US and international writing centers (2) clarifying these tutors’ roles, (3) elaborating on the methodology, and (4) addressing organizational and grammatical issues. In both meetings, the writer and I discussed a plan of revision including having clearer topic sentences and identifying gaps in the research. The writer seemed to appreciate my comments and incorporated them into their revised draft.
Recently, one of the reviewers also provided some additional feedback focused on grammar, APA conventions, phrasing, and expansion of other sections (methods, conclusion, limitations, and future directions). The professional editor informed the reviewer that some of the lower-order concerns, including grammatical issues and APA formatting, would be addressed during copyediting. This story offers future graduate editors a model for mentoring future authors from start to finish. Ultimately, I felt more confident in providing multiple rounds of constructive synchronous and asynchronous feedback. Compared to other journals that only provide written comments, writers responded positively as I described my feedback in Zoom meetings, which fostered stronger relationships with them.
Besides mentoring writers, future graduate editors also have a myriad of responsibilities. First, they will commit to a total of 2-3 years in this role and spend a specific number of hours per month working on assignments. The number of hours can vary; I spent up to 15-20 hours some months, depending on my tasks. Second, they will attend monthly meetings with the TPR editorial board to discuss a variety of agenda items, including the timeline for future publications. However, depending on the time of year, meetings may be held more infrequently. Third, they must respond to any emails from authors or the TPR board in a timely manner. Finally, they should utilize this role to grow professionally by proposing and pursuing projects that align with TPR’s values. Some examples could include: (1) suggesting a presentation topic to share at IWCA or NCPTW, (2) revising any document in the Google Drive folder, or (3) identifying topic(s) for future special issues for TPR. As I navigated my other job and grad student duties, I learned the importance of mastering academic writing genre requirements and providing feedback to writers that is actionable and growth-oriented. I will continue to support TPR’s mission in guiding newer scholars to publications rather than immediately rejecting their research. If future editors from TPR or other journals in the field have any questions, they can reach out to me at ayim93@gmail.com.