By Serena Carpenter<br />http://serenacarpenter.com<br />@drcarpArizona State University<br />Publishing research manuscri...
Tenure expectations<br />
Article number<br />9 to 16 articles<br />12 most common<br />
Acceptance rates<br />15% or less<br />MCS, JQ, JOB, JOC, JCMC, HCR, NMS, CSMC<br />20% or higher<br />NRJ (30-40%)<br />J...
Impact factor<br />J Comp-Mediated Communication 3.6<br />J of Communication 2.4<br />New Media & Society 1.3<br />Harvard...
Manuscript review process<br />
Major reasons for rejection<br />Inappropriate for journal<br />Not novel<br />Poorly written and organized<br />Little co...
Inappropriate for journal<br />Know editors<br />Look at editorial advisory board<br />Get to know manuscript preferences<...
Not novel<br />“So what” question<br />Judee K. Burgoon advices students to “problemize their topic” by focusing on the qu...
Poorly written & organized<br />Difficult to identify value<br />Method in abstract<br />Organize logically<br />Introduct...
Little contribution to theory<br />Descriptive<br />Concepts should be rooted in literature and conceptually defined<br />...
Poor design<br />Hypotheses and RQs<br />Double-barreled research questions<br />Affect<br />Method<br />Unit of analysis<...
Not well-researched<br />References should be comprehensive and accurate<br />Appropriate style<br />Potential reviewers<b...
Responding to reviewers<br />Organize response professionally<br />Don’t let emotions guide your argument<br />Respond to ...
Networking<br />
Collaborate with productive people<br />Pressure to complete projects<br />To learn, ask scholars to collaborate<br />Trea...
Serve as a reviewer for a journal<br />Think like a reviewer<br />Quality of your reviews may affect future opportunities<...
Make the most of conferences<br />Be well-prepared for presentations<br />Go to socials<br />Volunteer for service<br />Ap...
Resources<br />How to Publish Your Communication Research<br />Editors: Alison Alexander andW. James Potter<br />Editors a...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Academic Publishing in Communication and Journalism

1,843
-1

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,843
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The purpose is to teach you the scholars trade. Important, useful, orginal and contributes to scientific knowledge. I have published. I have been reject 3 times.
  • Publishing in leading journals has always been tied to success. And it can be difficult to publish esp when those who are published are from the top 20 institutions. The first journal was founded in 1665 called Philosophical Transactions.
  • Journal of Radio &amp; Audio MediaCritical Studies in Media Communication
  • Most frequently cited journals in a field of communicationJournal representing the discipline. More schools may be relying on the impact factor of a journal. Citation and article counts are indicators of how frequently researchers are using individual journals.
  • Review lengthTimely review2-3 readers review it. Only 5% accepted with minor revisions… And 5% editor rejected. Referees are often picked because of methodological experience.
  • Reviewers can review with skeptism
  • Editor chosen authors and puts out a call. JQ, Journalism, New Media &amp; Society, NRJ – Professionally
  • Is this an important question? Does this add to existing knowledge?
  • Researchers need to lay out a clear path and persuade the soundnessThe introduction section focuses on setting up the problem. It also informs the reader about he sample, method, design and study goals. The literature review should explain to the reader why they should care and connect literature review to your hypotheses or research questions. The method plan should be explained in clear detail to encourage replication of the study. The method portion should include information justifying the sample, explaining how the sample was selected and collected, how variables were measures, and how data were analyzed. The results should present the results. The discussion section addresses the implications and explanation of the results. Alan M. Rubin suggests including information about the contribution of knowledge to knowledge and practice, the impact of the results on theory, and explanations related to unexpected or contradictory findings. The conclusion section usually addresses bigger picture items.
  • Comparative studies Sample studiesEncourage replicationTraditional media, citizen journalists, public opinion, The impulse to overclaim is natural.20 correalation does suggest a strong relationship even if it is significant. Large sample sizes make small correalzation to be statistically significant. Also is it relationship or affect
  • In abstract you should reference the sample being employed. College students. Not generalizable to the US population… how was it selected. Is it representative. I try to explain each step…. Who interviewed, where was the data collected. Results from inappropriate data
  • Limited effects neglects minimal consequences
  • Foc
  • Email the editor letting him or asking him if it is okay that he/she submit it to two journals.
  • Academic Publishing in Communication and Journalism

    1. 1. By Serena Carpenter<br />http://serenacarpenter.com<br />@drcarpArizona State University<br />Publishing research manuscripts<br />
    2. 2. Tenure expectations<br />
    3. 3. Article number<br />9 to 16 articles<br />12 most common<br />
    4. 4. Acceptance rates<br />15% or less<br />MCS, JQ, JOB, JOC, JCMC, HCR, NMS, CSMC<br />20% or higher<br />NRJ (30-40%)<br />Journalism (30%)<br />Journalism Practice (40%)<br />Journalism Educator (30%)<br />JRAM (30%)<br />Journalism History (25%)<br />These may not be the most current figures.<br />
    5. 5. Impact factor<br />J Comp-Mediated Communication 3.6<br />J of Communication 2.4<br />New Media & Society 1.3<br />Harvard Int J Press/Politics 1.2<br />Communication Research 1.4<br />Political Communication 1.3<br />Comm. Theory 1.2<br />Human Communication Research 2.2<br />Intl J Press/Politics .83<br />PR Review .63<br />J of Broadcasting .45<br />JQ .36<br />Critical Studies .33<br />
    6. 6. Manuscript review process<br />
    7. 7. Major reasons for rejection<br />Inappropriate for journal<br />Not novel<br />Poorly written and organized<br />Little contribution to theory<br />Poor design<br />Not well-researched<br />
    8. 8. Inappropriate for journal<br />Know editors<br />Look at editorial advisory board<br />Get to know manuscript preferences<br />Read “instructions for authors”<br />Special series<br />
    9. 9. Not novel<br />“So what” question<br />Judee K. Burgoon advices students to “problemize their topic” by focusing on the question.<br />Never pitch a topic about something such new technologies in the workplace, television violence, information overload, etc. <br />Theory and method should be selected following identification of a problem.<br />
    10. 10. Poorly written & organized<br />Difficult to identify value<br />Method in abstract<br />Organize logically<br />Introduction<br />Orient the reader by stating the purpose, sample, method, and goals including the definition of major variables.<br />Theory<br />IV<br />DV<br />Results/Discussion/Conclusion<br />
    11. 11. Little contribution to theory<br />Descriptive<br />Concepts should be rooted in literature and conceptually defined<br />Theory<br />Independent <br />Dependent <br />Do not overgeneralize<br />
    12. 12. Poor design<br />Hypotheses and RQs<br />Double-barreled research questions<br />Affect<br />Method<br />Unit of analysis<br />Sample and sampling procedure<br />Your survey questionnaire, content analysis protocol, etc. should be informed by theory or literature.<br />Operational definitions<br />
    13. 13. Not well-researched<br />References should be comprehensive and accurate<br />Appropriate style<br />Potential reviewers<br />Keyword searches<br />
    14. 14. Responding to reviewers<br />Organize response professionally<br />Don’t let emotions guide your argument<br />Respond to each critique<br />Use evidence to defend points challenged by the reviewer <br />Provide precise location in response<br />Sample Responses to Reviewers and Reviewer Critiques<br />
    15. 15. Networking<br />
    16. 16. Collaborate with productive people<br />Pressure to complete projects<br />To learn, ask scholars to collaborate<br />Treasure the people who are dependable<br />Discuss authorship and responsibilities early<br />
    17. 17. Serve as a reviewer for a journal<br />Think like a reviewer<br />Quality of your reviews may affect future opportunities<br />Email editor expressing interest in reviewing or serving as an editorial board member<br />Focus reviewing efforts<br />Focus on visibility with journal efforts<br />
    18. 18. Make the most of conferences<br />Be well-prepared for presentations<br />Go to socials<br />Volunteer for service<br />Apply for awards and grants<br />Submit to only one conference or publication at a time<br />
    19. 19. Resources<br />How to Publish Your Communication Research<br />Editors: Alison Alexander andW. James Potter<br />Editors as Gatekeepers. Getting Published in the Social Sciences<br />Editors: Rita J. Simon and James J. Fyfe<br />Dan Riffe, “Scholarly Journals as a Process and Practice Mirror,” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 60 (summer 2005): 140-45. <br />Ulla Bunz, “Publish or Perish: A Limited Author Analysis of ICA and NCA Journals,” Journal of Communication 55 (winter 2005): 703-20. <br />

    ×