Editing a leading journal such as Communication Theory is a joyful journey and source of intellectual inspiration – but sometimes too, it makes me feel a certain level of frustration. This often happens when I have to reject a manuscript, based on consistent reviewer recommendations, when in fact it could make an interesting contribution had the authors done a better job in making their case.

My sense is that there are generally three broad categories of journal submissions: good papers, very good papers – and others. Very good papers are routinely subjected to peer review and, provided they are favorably reviewed, they might get published after one or more rounds of revision. Other submissions are of less exceptional quality; they are either sorted out in the process of editorial screening, or they fail to stand the test of peer review.

Yet I think there is a third category of submissions, somewhere between the “promising” and “not publishable” categories. These articles advance some really interesting ideas, but the way the argument is presented and developed makes it difficult to fully appreciate the paper’s true contribution to the field. There can be a number of reasons for this: conceptual vagueness, a confusing argumentative structure, stylistic problems, or poor language skills to name but a few. The many good ideas that often go unappreciated by reviewers bring into relief a key aspect of the peer review process: an excellent idea alone does not necessarily make a good paper.

In a recent editorial for Communication Theory, I have hinted to a number of important points to consider for writing a theory essay. I have elaborated on each of these points more thoroughly in the editorial that can be accessed here. A short “checklist” contains sixteen questions that I think authors should ask themselves before they submit their articles to Communication Theory. These questions are as follows:

1. Is the need for a theory intervention justified?
2. Does the article address a communication problem?
3. Are objectives and limits clearly stated?
4. Does the paper engage the relevant communication literatures?
5. Does the literature review identify meaningful points of departure?
6. Are the ideas advanced in the paper actually new?
7. Does the article clearly spell out its own original theory contribution?
8. Are relevant terms and concepts explained?
9. Does the paper have a clear line of argument?
10. Does the article advance its ideas vis-à-vis other relevant positions?
11. Can any material that does not contribute to the flow of the argument be eliminated?
12. Does the paper use an accessible and comprehensible language?
13. If empirical work is used, does the article establish a clear link between theory and evidence?
14. Does the paper discuss the larger implications of the new theory?
15. Is the proposed theory intervention’s relevance compellingly demonstrated?
16. Does the paper address potential limitations?

To be sure, we do not expect each single submission to achieve everything that is mentioned in this list. Considering the vast range of areas, theories, epistemologies, and methodologies that characterize our field, we recognize that not all scholarly approaches and topics will necessarily yield themselves to all features of the above points. In particular, newer areas of work, including approaches that are very interdisciplinary or transnational, may not always be able to fully address all the items on the “checklist” in the way we want to see them.

As journal editors we depend heavily on the quality of work submitted by our authors. I sincerely hope that the above questions can help future authors to tailor their submissions to the expectations of readers, as well as the reviewers and editors of Communication Theory, which will ultimately improve the quality of submission.

Meet the Editors of ICA Publications
Friday, 21 June 2013; 12:00 to 13:15
Hilton Metropole, Board Room 1