Print Page | Contact Us | Sign In | Register
Conference paper reviewing guidelines
Group HomeGroup HomeGroup PagesDirectory & Features
Share |

REVIEWER GUIDELINES FOR FULL PAPERS AND EXTENDED ABSTRACT (BLIND REVIEW)

When you review full papers and/or extended abstract please make sure these meet the requirements stated in the call for papers also indicated below.

  1. Full length completed research papers (8,000–9,000 words; maximum 25 pages, excluding references and tables). Submitted papers must NOT have been previously presented, scheduled for presentation, published, accepted for publication, and if under review, must NOT appear in print before the conference. Submitters MUST DELETE ALL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION before submitting a paper.
  2. Extended abstracts (2,500-3,500 words) with a full paper submitted at least 6 weeks prior to the conference in May. Extended abstracts are intended for work in progress, offering the opportunity to present on-going research that has not yet reached completion at the time of the submission deadline. Extended abstracts should present in a concise way the purpose of the paper, main theoretical framework/ assumptions and if applicable research methods and preliminary and/or expected results. Extended abstracts should clearly STATE THE CONTRIBUTION of the paper for public relations theory and practice. Submitters MUST DELETE ALL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION before submitting an extended abstract.

Criteria for evaluation (these are the criteria you will find in the online management system)

1. Originality of ideas/approach and level of innovativeness

When evaluating this criterion, please consider the following questions to make an assessment:

  • Are the ideas advanced in the paper/extended abstract actually new?
  • If conceptual, does the paper/extended abstract expand our understanding of a new domain?
  • Does the paper/extended abstract introduce new constructs or concepts that broaden our ideological understanding?

2. Relevance for Public Relations Division

When evaluating this criterion, please consider the following questions to make an assessment:

  • Does the paper/extended abstract address a theoretical or empirical public relations problem?
  • Should the paper/extended abstract be presented at a different division? (if you believe so, please make a note for the program planner in the comment box indicating precisely why and for which division this paper/extended abstract may be more suitable)

3. Quality of theoretical argument

When evaluating this criterion, please consider the following questions to make an assessment:

  • Does the paper/extended abstract present a clear, precise and complete review of relevant literature?
  • Does the theoretical argument engage the conceptual/ empirical investigation appropriately?
  • Does the paper/extended abstract involve the relevant public relations literature? (please, when scoring consider that we do not discourage using literature from other disciplines, but  a paper/extended abstract submitted to the Public Relations Division should be grounded on some public relations understanding)

4. Quality of empirical or conceptual design

If the paper/extended abstract is EMPIRICAL, please consider the following questions:

  • Are the methods used to collect and analyse data appropriate to the research questions asked?
  • Are the data collection and analysis methods clearly explained and without major flaws?

If the paper/extended abstract is CONCEPTUAL, please consider the following questions:

  • Do(es) the author(s) provide a clear argument for why it is important to discuss, define, and/or question specific concepts, models, and/or ideas?
  • FOR EXTENDED ABSTRACTS: Does the extended abstract present clearly the main propositions and/or hypotheses that will be discussed and unfold in the full paper?

5. Quality of development and support for the propositions/hypotheses

If the paper/extended abstract is EMPIRICAL, please consider the following questions:

  • Does the paper establish a clear link between theory and evidence? If the submission is an extended abstract, does it clear state what link can be expected between theory and evidence once the empirical data are collected?
  • ONLY FOR FULL PAPERS: Does the author conclude beyond what the data support?

If the paper/extended abstract is CONCEPTUAL, please consider the following questions:

  • Does the paper develop adequate and innovative propositions to clarify, define, and question core concepts in public relations field and/or to develop a new theory or perspective?  
  • FOR EXTENDED ABSTRACTS: does the extended abstract clarify how the author(s) intend(s) to develop and support the propositions and hypotheses in the full paper?

6. Presentation: Coherence and clarity of structure and thought

When evaluating this criterion, please consider the following questions to make an assessment:

  • Are relevant terms and concepts explained?
  • Does the paper/extended abstract have a clear line of argument?
  • Does the paper/extended abstract use an accessible and comprehensible language?

7. Contribution to public relations theory building

When evaluating this criterion, please consider the following questions to make an assessment:

  • Does the paper/extended abstract discuss possible implications for new theory?
  • Does the paper/extended abstract clearly spell out its own original theory contribution?

GUIDELINES FOR PANEL AND ROUNDTABLE PROPOSALS (NOT BLIND REVIEW)

When you review full papers and/or extended abstract please make sure these meet the requirements stated in the call for papers also indicated below.

  1. Panel proposals (including roundtable proposals) should focus on current debates in the field of public relations. Panels should have a clear discussion orientation, and topics proposed should not only lend themselves to a debate among panelists but also generate discussion among session attendees.

    Proposals that feature institutional and/or national diversity will be given extra weight. Besides proposals with traditional paper presentations, the division will consider panel proposals using creative formats that advance division aims such as expanding participation and mentoring of student scholars, for example hybrid sessions (presentation/interactive display).

    Panel proposals should include: 1) a 450-word (max) rationale for the panel (if you are proposing a novel panel format, please specify here the format), 2) a 350-word (max) abstract of each participant’s presentation, 3) Names of panel participants (including a designated respondent if relevant for the panel format), 4) Name of panel chair/organizer (usually the same person), and 5) a 75-word description of the panel for the conference program.

    Additionally the panel proposal should include a statement from the organizer declaring: “I have received signed statements from all intended participants agreeing to register for the conference and participate in the panel.” If any item of the above guidelines and formatting instructions is not met, the panel will NOT be reviewed.

Criteria for evaluation (these are the criteria you will find in the online management system)

1. Originality of ideas/approach and level of innovativeness

When evaluating this criterion, please consider the following questions to make an assessment:

  • Are the ideas advanced in the panel proposal actually new?
  • Does the panel proposal expand our understanding of public relations field?
  • Does the panel proposal present ideas that are timely and relevant?

2. Relevance for public relations division

When evaluating this criterion, please consider the following questions to make an assessment:

  • Does the panel proposal address a public relations problem?
  • Does the panel proposal feature institutional or national diversity and/or introduce diverse perspectives? (when scoring, please consider that ICA is interested in promoting diversity as much as possible)
  • Should the panel be a co-sponsored panel? (if you believe this panel could be relevant for other divisions, please make a note for the program planner in the comment box indicating precisely why and which division(s) may have an interest

3. Contribution to the debate on public relations research

When evaluating this criterion, please consider the following questions to make an assessment:

  • Does the panel have the potential to contribute to debates about important matters for public relations scholarship and practice?
  • Does the panel have the potential to stimulate discussions and audience interactions?
  • Do proposed presenters have the expertise and qualifications to contribute to the proposed debate?
  • Based on the previous criteria and the level of innovativeness, does the panel have the potential to attract a large audience? (If you believe so, please make a note for the program planner in the comment box indicating precisely why).

4. Coherence and clarity of structure and thought of the panel as a whole

When evaluating this criterion, please consider the following questions to make an assessment:

  • Does the panel proposal have a clear line of argument?
  • Taking into consideration the proposed panel format, is it appropriate and feasible considering the time and the scope of the panel? (Normally each panel lasts one hour and fifteen minutes, the number of presentations proposed should be feasible considering the time limit and that there should be some time left for discussion)?
  • Are the different panel presentations well-connected to contribute to the overall panel objectives?
Contact

International Communication Association
1500 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036 USA

Phone: (202) 955-1444

Connect With Us