Editor's Focus, October 2009

Journal of Public Relations Research

Karen Miller Russell

In August, I attended the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, whose Public Relations Division sponsors the Journal of Public Relations Research. I found myself answering lots of questions about the journal for a range of people: authors, former students, division members, new graduate students, editorial board members, and more.

One of the common questions had to do with the review process. What exactly do reviewers want? In one way, this is an easy question to answer, because the Journal provides Reviewing Guidelines to anyone who agrees to complete a review. These guidelines ask a series of questions designed to help the reviewer determine the manuscript's worth, such as: Is the research original? Does it make a significant contribution to the body of knowledge? Is the method appropriate to the research questions asked?

But the process is more complicated than simply answering these questions. Reviewers, and ultimately the editor, must weigh various factors and determine which ones count most in making their final recommendations. For example, I've encountered a few reviewers who are offended by bad writing or poor documentation - one to the point that the reviewer didn't want to complete the review, arguing that such sloppiness was indicative of the researcher's ability to produce good scholarship. Most other reviewers, though, seem willing to overlook bad writing, which can be corrected, if the methodology is strong and the research questions are important to the field.

Based on my first year of reviewing manuscripts, I've determined that reviewers prioritize the following factors in their decision to recommend or not recommend a manuscript for publication.

1. The research must be methodologically sound. It's a rare manuscript that doesn't raise a few questions about method. Reviewers often ask for clarification or more detail, and sometimes suggest additional work, such as running another relevant statistical test. However, if a reviewer identifies a fatal flaw - something that can't be easily corrected, such as a poorly constructed survey instrument, or in-depth interviews conducted with the wrong people - the paper is sure to be rejected.
2. The research must make an original and significant contribution to public relations theory development. Even if a paper is methodologically perfect, reviewers may reject it for failing to make a big enough contribution to the field. Reviewers may, for example, suggest that the author is trying to make more of the research than the findings merit. Sometimes reviewers are able to provide advice about how to improve such a manuscript, but sometimes they conclude that there's simply not enough there to merit publication.
3. The research must be grounded in the literature, providing a strong theoretical foundation. In this case, method matters. Scholars submitting critical-cultural or historical research may be able to go back and add to the literature, thereby strengthening their interpretations. But scholars using some types of qualitative research and especially quantitative research may not be able to address the problem so easily. Because interview protocols, research questions, and hypotheses are based on the literature, overlooking some important aspect of the literature may make it impossible to improve the manuscript without conducting additional research.
4. The paper must be well organized and written at least well enough for the reviewers to be certain that they understand the author's argument. Bad writing may not be lethal to a manuscript, but it does guarantee the paper will need revision.

Reviewers vary, of course, as do submissions. But most reviewers are earnest in their attempts to help the Journal publish only the best public relations research.