November 1 is the last day to submit proposals to ICA. This is an important time for ICA student scholars, as many of you might wonder whether you should send out that seminar paper you have worked so hard on, and what would get your paper accepted for presentation.

To help ICA student members understand what would constitute successful ICA submissions, we have asked for advice from several communication scholars who have had numerous ICA presentations in their careers and who have taken leadership position in ICA. The scholars who have graciously agreed to offer their thoughts to students include: Peter Monge, Professor at University of Southern California and 1997-1998 President of ICA; Robert T. Craig, Professor at University of Colorado and 2003-3004 President of ICA; Ronald E. Rice, Professor at University of California Santa Barbara and 2006-2007 President of ICA; and Nick Couldry, Professor at Goldsmiths, University of London and Chair of ICA's Philosophy of Communication Division.

The distinguished interviewees were asked why it is important to submit, what makes a good paper submission to ICA, and what makes a good panel submission to ICA. Read the interviewees' in-depth answers below!

Why is it important to submit papers and panels for the ICA annual conference?

Peter Monge:
"Having student submit conference papers is good for ICA because students are the future intellectual leaders of the association. Students often work on cutting edge ideas and are very creative in their approaches to research. Students, especially those in or approaching the dissertation phase of their doctoral careers, are often very deeply involved in empirical research, often much more than senior scholars. Students contribute extensively to our research base. ICA needs the innovative ideas, creative research, and sheer intellectual energy that student provide as an important part of the basis for its continuing growth and development.

"Students need to submit papers and panels to ICA because it provides a scholarly forum in which to share their ideas. Scholarship is about sharing, and presenting papers at professional meetings is one of the primary means of accomplishing this goal... along with publication and teaching. ICA papers have standards in terms of content, length, and style that students need to abide by, just as journals have standards. Most divisions give people feedback about how good their paper was judged to be, either by a written statement from reviewers, by a ranking system for all submission to a division, and/or by identifying the top rated student papers. Further, comments and feedback are frequently provided by commentators on program sessions and from discussion with the audience. People often come up to students to talk about their papers after the session is over or later in the conference. Being on a paper program gives students the opportunity not only to share their ideas but also to become a fully involved and active member of the research community."

Robert T. Craig:
"This is the best way to get involved in communication research on a professional level. ICA offers the highest quality international conference in the broad communication field. Having your paper accepted for presentation at ICA is a mark of quality and an opportunity to bring it to the attention of top scholars in your area. It is a great networking opportunity as well as a step in bringing your work toward publication."

Ronald E. Rice:
"I think the essence of the research (largely labeled "science") profession and culture is sharing, exposing, seeking and receiving critique. So perhaps the main reason is to expose and share your ideas, and, in turn, be exposed to and learn about many other people's ideas.

"While there are increasing alternatives to the traditional conference paper/panel session at physical conferences, this is still a very good way to prepare for, and present, your ideas, arguments, and results from a study. If the session is run well and the audience gets involved, this is also a great way to stimulate questions, critiques, suggestions, and interesting new thoughts relating to your presentation/study. That open exchange of ideas, including critiques and challenges to uncover and resolve ambiguities, weaknesses, or errors is at the heart of the research process and community. And having to prepare and edit down one's paper for submission, and then prepare a good presentation within strict time limits, and be open to questions and critiques, is good and necessary training and skill development.

"In turn, attending session at a conference is a great way to be exposed to both very specific research (typically, in the areas you are working in) as well as very general, diverse, and even unusual topics. I typically try to attend at least one session on a topic I know absolutely nothing about, in a division very far from my own interests. I always learn interesting things and new perspectives. It's very hard to keep up even within one's own research area, much less in others, so attending sessions and panels is a convenient and effective way to sample what's going on, hear and meet people doing that work, request specific papers, and possibly begin discussions and even research collaborations. I typically return from a conference with lots of business cards with notes on the back, about papers to send and request, topics and articles and books to read, and possible follow-up discussions.

"Along with many other reasons, it's also very important to participate in the central activities of ICA (or one's other main associations), supporting others, and contributing to the success of the conference and the overall mission of the discipline."

Dr. Nick Couldry:
"The quality of an ICA conference depends on the quality of the submissions. Programmers will want to be fair to those who made the effort of writing a paper in advance for their submission, so will always make up some of their program through panels constructed through submitted papers, but in my division (PhilComm) for example we regularly get a lot of very strong panel submissions also which can lead to some difficult questions of balance between submitted papers and panels. Nonetheless, we always encourage a high level of submission of both papers and panels, since in that way we have the best chance to securing a diverse and lively program in our division. A very important part of that is a strong representation from our student divisional members, and we always look out to make sure they are as well represented as possible. That is vital for the long-term health of the ICA and the communications field."

What makes a good paper submission for the ICA conference?

Peter Monge:
"A good paper has to start with good ideas. Testing theoretical insights is a good place to start, but other alternatives also exist. Challenging the accepted view is another good alternative. Proposing integration of separate but related views is a third. Solving a practical problem is also a worthy goal.

"In general, a good paper is one that makes a contribution to what we know about a particular idea or topic. A good paper also should be well written, a document that conveys ideas clearly and eloquently. And, a good paper must conform to divisional standards and requirements. So, the paper should be within the space limits articulated by a division, written in the required format (as specified in a style guide like the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association), and submitted before the deadline.

"I tell my students that they should not write conference papers. Rather, they should write journal articles. They should make sure they have the journal article ready to send off for publication by the deadline for the ICA conference paper submission. Then, they should send the paper manuscript to the journal and to ICA at the same time.

"Many students, like many faculty, wait to the last minute to finish a paper and submit it. A better alternative is to finish a good draft of the paper a month before ICA's November 1 paper submission deadline (What better way could you spend your summer?). Then send it to a couple of faculty and student colleagues who you respect and ask for feedback on the paper within two weeks. Then take the last two weeks before the deadline to revise your paper and submit it."

Robert T. Craig:
"Of course, the quality of your research and writing are the most important factors in a good paper submission. In addition, it is important to meet the expectations of the particular division or interest group to which you are submitting. Adhere strictly to the posted guidelines. Look at the programs sponsored by that division or interest group at previous ICA conferences. Talk with member of that division/group or call/write to the responsible program planner to get a general sense of the appropriateness of your paper to that particular unit before submitting."

Ronald E. Rice:
"Well, there are many aspects of good papers, and of bad papers, and many different ways to develop and structure good and bad papers, and most papers have some of each! I review a LOT of papers submitted to journals and conference - about 100 a year - and here are some of the things I always look for as positive aspects:

• Have a clear abstract that identifies the problem, the theoretical foundation, a bit about the method, and some tantalizing results. This is what people will read first (perhaps only), and what databases will search on.
• Make no writing errors (typos, spelling, grammar, punctuation, APA style); keep within required length.
• Make very clear what the main problem or topic is and why. 
• Clarify up front the structure or contents of the paper.
• The review should serve a clear purpose. Avoid just reviewing stuff without implications or foundations for the study - the reader shouldn't have to ask "so why was all this stuff reviewed anyway?" So, identify and emphasize the main insights, foundations, or implications of the review, leading into the research questions, hypotheses, model, or framework.
• In my opinion, it's bad strategy to say "this is unique because no one's studied this before" - that is almost never true, and certainly not if the topic is even slightly generalized.
• Identify and emphasize what is interesting, problematic, innovative, counterintuitive, a contribution, etc.
• In the review, development of the model/questions/hypotheses, measures, analyses, and results, be completely consistent in the terms used (concepts, variables, etc.) throughout. Sometimes the paper takes a long time to reach its final form, and the terminology may have mutated/evolved so that some things near the end don't match some things near the beginning of the paper!
• Be explicit and clear about your methods and analyses; if there's any way someone could possibly misinterpret or project onto the content/argument, someone will. Write and organize the paper so that no one can (impossible, of course!).
• Throughout, provide signposts for the reader - transitions, summaries of the subsequent sections, definitions, etc.
• In the end of the paper, be sure to tie back into the theoretical concepts and implications identified in the review and your model/questions. What did you learn by applying the theory? What questions did this raise for the theory?
• I like tables, figures, visual models. It helps the reader, but, perhaps more importantly, it forces the author to organize and present."

Nick Couldry:
"Reviewers are looking for papers that clearly locate themselves in, or at least in relation to existing literatures, and give a clear rationale of what they, in particular - by contrast with the many other papers being submitted - have to offer to a conference audience, as a report on the latest research. Rich literature reviews which stay at that level and do not offer anything new or original are therefore unlikely to be accepted. On the other hand, papers on projected research which offer a genuinely new way of looking at the research that needs to be done may be accepted, because they can contribute to furthering debate. It is of course very important for reviewing that papers are anonymized so that their quality can be assessed regardless of any background knowledge of the reviewer; papers which are not anonymized cause problems for the program chairs."

What makes a good panel submission for the ICA conference?

Peter Monge:
"Panels are a little different from paper sessions. They tend to be organized around a specific topic or issue, often the conference theme. They are frequently centered on an emerging, cutting edge set of ideas and are often more controversial, synthetic, and integrative than traditional paper sessions. They are often aimed at a broader topic and larger audience than paper sessions. People rarely report the results of empirical research, though there is no reason why this could not be done.

"Like good paper sessions, good panel proposals also start with good ideas regarding theory, methods or applications. The panel needs to contain people with different perspectives and views; diversity is always good. Panels also require preplanning and coordination in ways that traditional program sessions typically do not. The panel members need to collaborate fairly extensively in the preparation of the proposal to make sure they have a topic that is wide-ranging enough to be of interest to a number of different kinds of people. They need to know they each have an interesting perspective on the topic, something important, different, and unique to contribute to the discussion. Collectively, their perspectives should contribute to a lively interchange (Panels where everyone agrees can get pretty boring.)

"Panels are selected by division chairs and recommended to the ICA president-elect who is the program planner each year. So, before preparing a panel proposal it is a good idea to contact the division chair and discuss your ideas together to see if a good proposal on your topic is likely to garner his or her positive recommendation to the president-elect. Of course, nothing is guaranteed in advance. The final recommendations will depend heavily on the panels that get proposed. But it is good to find out in advance if the division chair is generally favorable or less so toward your topic. If the division chair isn't very favorable, your proposal probably doesn't have much of a chance no matter how good it is."

Robert T. Craig:
"Different ICA divisions and interest groups vary considerably in their receptiveness to panel submissions. Panels should be thematically coherent and timely, and the abstracts submitted should inspire confidence that the panel will be of high quality and relevance. Generally speaking, panels composed entirely of students or of people from a single institution tend to be evaluated less highly than panels including visible scholars and participants from more than one institution or country."

Ronald E. Rice:
"Panels take up the same session resource as a set of papers, so it must provide at least as much insight and contribution. One advantage, and thus criterion, is to focus on a specific topic, so that someone interested in the topic will want to come to the panel to get good in-depth exposure to the topic. This also means that the basis of the panel submission must be a very focused brief review of the issue and its context, justifying the rationale for the panel.

"What is the benefit or contribution of this particular panel? What are the qualifications of the contributors? Why is this particular topic important or timely?

"Be sure to include good short biographies of each panel member. Sometimes a group of students or faculty from one institution submit and present a panel session. For some reason, reviewers and audience members do not respond to that as well as to a panel with representatives from several institutions."

Nick Couldry:
"If you are submitting for the first time to ICA, it is quite likely you will be submitting a paper, rather than a panel. It often takes time to build up the connections which lead to being invited to take part in a panel submission, let alone submitting one yourself. But of course there is no reason why students should not submit a panel if they have a strong proposal.

"What reviewers are looking for in panels is a clear rationale for that panel in that particular conference - remember that something similar might have been done a year or two before, so you need a rationale which explains why your panel is particularly timely just now! Similarly, you need to explain the balance of the papers, and if possible why any chosen respondent or chair is also suitable for this panel.

"Overall, you should be aiming to give a clear impression of why your panel will not just be a great occasion for those giving the papers, but will be add something distinctive to debates in the field and at the conference. It is always also worth seeing if you can find a link to that year's overall conference theme, as well as having a glance at last year's program in your division to see if there are any obvious themes, or perhaps gap which you could argue this year need filling."