>Fair enough. I would then conclude it is fair to say the lines between a TE and PR are blurred. i.e., in reality, to be a good TE, you need the skills of both a peer review and a technical editor. Why do I conclude this? Because I have done it, and have had it done for my work. If the TE can't do the tasks of a PR, they are of no use.....


Well, I don't really agree. One can be a good peer reviewer, and if they are really talented also do good tech editing. But, most technical people are crumming editors/writers.

Is there a purpose for good tech editors and peer reviewers being seperate people? Yes, I think a case can be made for that. For example, tech editors generally make less money then the authors or researchers (who would make up the peer review poo). Authors and researchers generally don't have the time to devote to technical editing.

JMO. I've had the extreme pleasure (and pain *g*) of working with a full fledged technical editor on a manual. It was a great experience. Course, it was an ego-bruising experience, too. :)