Home - About Subscriptions Editorial Board Table of Contents For Reviewers For Authors Frequently Asked Questions Contacts	Journal of Public Relations Research FOR REVIEWERS Below are the guidelines the Journal suggests for writing reviews of manuscripts: Please write your review on a sheet of paper separate from your letter of transmission. Please place the title of the article at the top of the page. Please write your review to be as constructive to the author as possible, even if your recommendation is to reject the article. Any elaboration of your final recommendation can be included in your letter of transmission. Please address each of the following criteria in your review, unless they are not relevant for some reason. Does the Article Contain Original Research? All academic methodologies are appropriate for the Journal of Public Relations Research, including social scientific, historical, and critical. However, all articles must contain original data or observations and should contribute to the broad body of knowledge in public relations. The connection to public relations must be obvious or stated. Experiments on persuasion or critiques of government propaganda cannot be assumed to be relevant to public relations; authors must make a direct connection to the body of knowledge in public relations. Reviewers should recognize that “data and observations” differ with methodologies. The observations in philosophical or critical research may be citations of other writers or original ideas of the author. Articles that consist only of a literature review, however, will not be acceptable unless that review makes a substantial and original contribution to the scholarly body of knowledge in public relations. Contribution to Scholarly Body of Knowledge in Public Relations Does the research reported in the article contribute to the scholarly body of knowledge in public relations? If the research is historical, legal, or critical, do the results suggest trends or generalizations that apply beyond the particular event or law studied? If the research builds or tests public relations theory, does the study advance our understanding of public relations theory? Does the theory help to solve a public relations problem rather than some other communication or management problem? Does the research go beyond description? Can the results be generalized to public relations situations other than the one studied in the research? Methodology Are concepts measured appropriately? Are the results valid and reliable (when these standards are consistent with the chosen method)? Are appropriate statistics used? Or have appropriate historical, critical, or legal methods been used? Organization and Style Is the article well organized? Are ideas developed in some meaningful sequence? Does one section logically follow another? Are there introductory comments and summary conclusions where appropriate? Are there ill-formed sentences and ill-chosen words that interfere with clarity? Did the writer avoid excessive passive voice, stacked modifiers, too many noun modifiers, verbs turned into nouns, worthless prefixes and suffixes, or excessive verbiage? Was the paper difficult to understand? If it was, please specify whether the difficulty arose because of your unfamiliarity with the concepts and methods used or because of poor writing. Reasons to Accept Look for the positive characteristics of the article. What is the best argument you can make for accepting it? Reasons to Reject Are there deficiencies in the article that make it unacceptable for publication in the Journal of Public Relations Research, even after revision? Revisions Needed to Improve the Manuscript or to Qualify for Resubmission Reviewers often believe they must suggest revisions to have done their job properly. That is not the case. You will save the author, the editor, and yourself time if the article is acceptable as is, and you say so. On the other hand, please suggest specific ways to strengthen the article when you consider revision necessary. If the article is unacceptable in its present form but could be made acceptable, specify clarify what the author should do in revising the article. Your Final Recommendation Choose one of the following: Accept the article as it is. Accept the article if revisions are made. Revise and resubmit the article for a second review. Reject without recommendation for resubmission.

Journal of Public Relations Research

FOR REVIEWERS

Below are the guidelines the Journal suggests for writing reviews of manuscripts:

Please write your review on a sheet of paper separate from your letter of transmission. Please place the title of the article at the top of the page. Please write your review to be as constructive to the author as possible, even if your recommendation is to reject the article. Any elaboration of your final recommendation can be included in your letter of transmission. Please address each of the following criteria in your review, unless they are not relevant for some reason.

Does the Article Contain Original Research?

All academic methodologies are appropriate for the Journal of Public Relations Research, including social scientific, historical, and critical. However, all articles must contain original data or observations and should contribute to the broad body of knowledge in public relations. The connection to public relations must be obvious or stated. Experiments on persuasion or critiques of government propaganda cannot be assumed to be relevant to public relations; authors must make a direct connection to the body of knowledge in public relations. Reviewers should recognize that “data and observations” differ with methodologies. The observations in philosophical or critical research may be citations of other writers or original ideas of the author. Articles that consist only of a literature review, however, will not be acceptable unless that review makes a substantial and original contribution to the scholarly body of knowledge in public relations.

Contribution to Scholarly Body of Knowledge in Public Relations

Does the research reported in the article contribute to the scholarly body of knowledge in public relations? If the research is historical, legal, or critical, do the results suggest trends or generalizations that apply beyond the particular event or law studied? If the research builds or tests public relations theory, does the study advance our understanding of public relations theory? Does the theory help to solve a public relations problem rather than some other communication or management problem? Does the research go beyond description? Can the results be generalized to public relations situations other than the one studied in the research?

Methodology

Are concepts measured appropriately? Are the results valid and reliable (when these standards are consistent with the chosen method)? Are appropriate statistics used? Or have appropriate historical, critical, or legal methods been used?

Organization and Style

Is the article well organized? Are ideas developed in some meaningful sequence? Does one section logically follow another? Are there introductory comments and summary conclusions where appropriate? Are there ill-formed sentences and ill-chosen words that interfere with clarity? Did the writer avoid excessive passive voice, stacked modifiers, too many noun modifiers, verbs turned into nouns, worthless prefixes and suffixes, or excessive verbiage? Was the paper difficult to understand? If it was, please specify whether the difficulty arose because of your unfamiliarity with the concepts and methods used or because of poor writing.

Reasons to Accept

Look for the positive characteristics of the article. What is the best argument you can make for accepting it?

Reasons to Reject

Are there deficiencies in the article that make it unacceptable for publication in the Journal of Public Relations Research, even after revision?

Revisions Needed to Improve the Manuscript or to Qualify for Resubmission

Reviewers often believe they must suggest revisions to have done their job properly. That is not the case. You will save the author, the editor, and yourself time if the article is acceptable as is, and you say so. On the other hand, please suggest specific ways to strengthen the article when you consider revision necessary. If the article is unacceptable in its present form but could be made acceptable, specify clarify what the author should do in revising the article.

Your Final Recommendation

Choose one of the following:
            Accept the article as it is.
            Accept the article if revisions are made.
            Revise and resubmit the article for a second review.
            Reject without recommendation for resubmission.