Writing for Communication Theory

Abstract

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: very good articles, good articles … and others. Very good articles 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. Some authors choose not to address the “communication” in the journal's title; others do not make a substantive contribution to theory or are not sufficiently developed.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 38 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.