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