GUIDELINES
FOR EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS / REVIEWERS
INTRODUCTION
The
Ohio Communication Journal publishes original scholarship bearing on the
breadth of the field of communication studies. Within this broad purview, it
welcomes diverse disciplinary, conceptual, and methodological perspectives. Articles
published within the Ohio Communication Journal
must have both scientific and pedagogical validity and must conform to the Guidelines
for Manuscript Submissions (see journal web site www.OCAJournal.com).
We appreciate that reviewing
papers takes up your time and we are very grateful to you for agreeing to act as
a reviewer.
PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW
The primary purpose is to
determine whether the article constitutes a contribution to the field of
communication studies. Consider the
manuscript from the point of view of both a specialist and a generalist. The
paper should have some meaning for a reader who is not a specialist in the
sub-field being discussed. Note that authors are instructed to submit only
original material that has not been published previously and that the article
should not have been submitted simultaneously to another journal.
Clarity is important.
You should judge whether the article is clearly organized, well presented and
correctly punctuated. If not, please recommend appropriate changes which might
make the article acceptable for publication.
See the Ohio Communication Journal
website for specific ways to make comments on a manuscript to maintain your
anonymity as a reviewer. Texts should be
judged on the basis of relevance to the aims and scope of the journal,
originality, rigor of thought, and the use of straightforward and precise prose.
Texts should be as concise as possible.
Specific points should be
raised when necessary. You should ask
questions concerning a methodological approach. You should also question a
technical or scientific procedure if something is omitted, misleading, or
unclear. Judge whether an analysis or procedure is appropriate, well done, and
ethical. Errors of all kinds should be pointed out, so they do not make it into
print. Key statements, unless well established, should be supported by
literature references and/or other evidence. Remember, there may be multiple
approaches that can be taken to designing a research study; and that, although
you may have designed the study differently, changes should only be recommended
if there are actual errors or clearly inappropriate steps taken in the project.
Correct for style and errors
in scientific terminology. The Ohio
Communication Journal publishes manuscripts that
adhere to the most recent editions of either the APA or MLA.
If you see stylistic problems, please be sure to note them clearly for
the author(s). If you find errors in
specialized pedagogical or scientific terminology, please indicate them.
Graphics and Tables should be considered in terms of relevance, clarity, and
style.
PARTS OF THE REVIEW PROCESS
1. Comments
Please type your comments on the review summary form and e-mail them to OCAJournal@aol.com
as a WORD or rich-text document. Please use a blind reviewer
account and the Track Changes option to add any comments and suggested
amendments to the electronic version of the manuscript provided; this will be
returned to the author for their consideration and amendment where appropriate.
Please indicate your overall decision in this matter on the comment sheet
provided.
2. Recommendation
Indicate on the comment sheet your recommendation:
• Accept
the manuscript as it stands.
• Accept with Minor Revisions: The paper is almost ready for
publication, requiring only simple revisions that could be accomplished within
one month.
• Accept with Major Revisions: More extensive revisions are required
(such as rethinking interpretations of the data, finding and incorporating
missed references into the narrative, rethinking the structure and presentation
of data tables, adding illustrations, etc.). This category of acceptance may be
expected to require at least three months for revisions to be completed.
• Reject: The paper is unsuitable for the Ohio
Communication Journal (and
resubmission is not encouraged). If you have ideas for a more appropriate
journal, please feel free to mention them for the author's benefit.
3. E-mail return of review.
Please e-mail your review to the OCAJournal@aol.com
as soon as possible. The
marked up electronic manuscript with the use of tracking changes should be
returned with the comments sheet to the communicating author. Our timetable is
tight because we are intending to provide a prompt publication service with a
turnaround time for accepted submissions of about one month. The reviews should
be initially collated by the Editorial Board Member (EBM) to whom the submission
was sent. The EBM must make a recommendation which is passed to the
Editor-in-Chief who makes the final decision and communicates this to the author
by the promised date (generally within 4-6 weeks).
Please
remember that a copy of most of your review (except your confidential comments
to the Editor) goes to the author to provide guidance and support the Editorial
Board justification for acceptance and rejection. Your comments are intended to
be constructive, so both positive as well as negative comments can be important
and appropriate. These comments should help the authors to realize that
particular suggestions are not merely criticisms, but are intended to improve
the quality of the article so that the end result is an improved professional
publication. Insulting or mean-spirited comments cannot be passed on to authors.
Framing comments in as constructive and professional a manner as possible will
improve the author’s ability to accept them and increase our chances of
receiving a publishable revision.