Wcu Workshop, Scholarly Publishing, Jankowski September 2009

Publishing in Academic Journals: Procedures & Practices

Materials related to presentation by Nicholas W. Jankowski

WCU Webometrics Institute YeungNam WCU Project Blog

September 22, 2008

Virtual Knowledge Studio for the Humanities and Social Sciences Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences Cruquiusweg 31 1019 AT Amsterdam, NL T: +3120 850270 F: +3120 8500271 www.virtualknowledgestudio.nl [email protected]

1

INTRODUCTION This collection of materials on publishing in scholarly journals in the social sciences and humanities serves as background material for a workshop held at Yeungnam University, Korea. Some of these materials relate to a journal that I co-edit: New Media & Society; others relate to a series of journal theme issues that I have prepared for JCMC, Javnost, Communications: The European J. of Communication Research, and the Electronic J. of Communication. The following materials are included: 1

2 3 4 5

sample correspondence between editor and author 1a sample cover letter to editor 1b letter from author accompanying ms 1c letter from editor with quality reviews 1d letter requesting revisions 1e letter requesting review 1f unhelpful reviews journal style guides reference materials reviewer form from New Media & Society materials 5a final ms checklist 5b NM&S editorial report

I recommend that persons attending the session examine materials on the New Media & Society Web site, particularly the ‘Author Guidelines’: http://newmediaandsociety.com. Participants may wish to examine back issues of this journal. Finally, workshop participants may be interested in the following article: Daft, R. L. (1995). Why I recommend your manuscript be rejected and what you can do about it. In L. L. Cummings & P. J. Frost (Eds.), Publishing in the organizational sciences (pp. 164182) New York: Sage.

Nick Jankowski September 2009

2

1

SAMPLE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN EDITOR AND AUTHOR

1A: SAMPLE COVER LETTER TO ACCOMPANY MANUSCRIPT

Editor Address Date Dear Professor (surname professor), Please find enclosed five copies of a manuscript submission for (name journal) entitled (title article) by (name author(s)). We believe that this paper fits well with the type of material sought and published by (name journal). All the authors of this article have agreed to its submission and we confirm that it is not currently being considered for publication by any other print or electronic journal. The enclosed documents and disk all conform to the (name of journal) submission requirements. In order to ensure that the names of the authors of the paper remain anonymous, references by the authors noted in the text have been replaced with ‘Author’. The journal submission guidelines request that potential referees be suggested. I would propose (name referee) and (name referee) as reviewers for this paper. We look forward to your response to our submission. Yours sincerely, (author)

1B: SAMPLE LETTER FROM AUTHOR ACCOMPANYING REVISED MANUSCRIPT Dear [name of editor], Attached you'll find a reworked manuscript for your consideration. As you will see, I have changed the focus of the paper quite drastically and made is more theoretical/essayistic in the process. It has therefore also become more personal and interpretative - less empirical I'm afraid. I have also added substantially more references and background materials (such as online examples, handbooks, and theoretical works). As you said, this does not need to be a problem for [journal], so I am hoping you'll bear with me and take the resubmission into consideration anyway. Below I will specifically address how I responded to each point made by the original two reviewers, whose input has been extremely valuable in rethinking my paper. Reviewer 1 This reviewer’s main point is that my typology is presented as though the four types of online journalism, or news sites, are somewhat independent and distinct. On pages 6-7 of the current manuscript and specifically in endnote 5 I have sought to address this issue by arguing in favor of a distinction-theoretical understanding of the model, rather than a differential understanding of independent types of online journalism/news sites. Reviewer 2

3

The first main point of critique of this reviewer is my use of sources for this paper. This is an important issue, as I claim to have written a fairly substantive overview of the literature. Therefore I have shifted the focus of the paper on understanding (rather than reviewing) online journalism, and have explicitly used overview books and papers, handbooks and trade journal articles as my sources. This means that many or most of the detailed empirical literature has been left out. This reviewer also would have welcomed more pre-1990 studies. In this I disagree, although it would be highly relevant for a paper on developments in electronic publishing. More specifically I have acknowledged this important point in endnote 3, where I discuss the main strands of thought (evolutionary/continuity versus revolutionary/discontinuity) in the historical literature regarding new media and their impact on society and modes of media production. My main point is that by translating an 'old' focus onto a 'new' situation too easily, one risks missing out on the profound implications of the developments of the last decade because of the massive and widespread adoption of the web into mainstream media and households across the globe. Second, I understand the changes in contemporary journalism as presented in Model III of the revised manuscript as not particular to electronic media, but to media, society and journalistic cultures in general. For this analysis, the sources as requested by this reviewer would not be particularly beneficial. This comment indeed addresses another criticism of this reviewer, namely that I did not include any systematically analyzed data from the teaching experience, the conference presentations and the indepth interviews. Of course, leaving out empirical data does not relieve me of the obligation to systemically analyze the literature used for this paper. Instead of restructuring the often self-similar content of handbooks and overview titles in online journalism, I have opted to exclusively address the underlying focus of the literature: its implicit acknowledgment that journalism as it always has worked (closed culture, content-based) must or can be translated into the wired digital communication age. This - plus the notion that any type of translation implicates profound cultural challenges - has now become a much more focal point in my argument, one that has been neglected or taken for granted in most of the literature. A final point of this reviewer relates to some of the statements in the paper, which can be considered to be unfounded, indeed problematic generalizations build upon weak support. I have sought to include more support regarding the two examples this reviewer cites (page 5, quoting Lynn Zoch and Colin Meek a.o.; reference to Henry Jenkins has been omitted). I have to admit, that because of the character of the current argument, that this point of critique survives to some extent. Certainly, most of the points made are not supported by empirical proof, and my use of English might cause some overly simplistic arguments. I have tried to acknowledge this where relevant. I have also sought to include much more specific references to arguments and evidence offered elsewhere in my analysis, and critically discuss the texts used. In doing so, I hope to have addressed the substantial criticism offered by this reviewer. I would like to suggest, that a particular contribution of this paper may be, that it provides a theoretical framework for hypothesizing, doing empirical research and interpreting data (of content analyses for example) beyond our existing models and ways of thinking. Hopefully the editors and reviewers will agree that I have sufficiently addressed the shortcomings of this paper to warrant publication in [journal]. I look forward to your response. 1C: SAMPLE LETTER FROM EDITOR TO AUTHOR WITH QUALITY REVIEWS Dear [name of author]: It has taken some time, but we now have received two reviews of your submission to [name of journal], entitled "[title of article]". Both reviews are pasted below; both contain extensive comments and suggestions; both recommend revisions of your manuscript and are quite supportive of the importance of your presentation and argument. I recommend you consider the comments and suggestions, and revised the manuscript. Please then resubmit it to [journal], along with a detailed letter indicating how you treated the various points made by the reviews. At that time the editors of [journal] will all read the revised version and take a decision regarding publication. This phase in the process can usually take place within about three weeks.

4

Please confirm receipt of this letter and indicate whether and, if so, when we may expect to receive a revised version of your article. Thanks much, [name]; look forward to hearing from you. Best, [editor]

Reviewer 1 Title: [title of article] This is a very interesting and well-written manuscript, which attempts to combine feminist theory with Internet studies and is concerned particularly with the intersection of gender and technology. The topic is important and particularly relevant to this journal, and the manuscript can make a meaningful contribution to the field. However, I have detected several important shortcomings, which I believe can be worked out by the author relatively easily. I would therefore like to recommend acceptance pending on revision. My general comments are the following: Theoretical background: Much of the theoretical background is too descriptive and not supported enough by references. The author makes many statements, presenting them as axioms, or taken for granted, without grounding them theoretically. Much of the support is assumed to be based on the author's previous work, which is not clearly articulated in the rational and therefore can not be evaluated. The readers are expected to accept at face value theoretical statements without being able to challenge them. Such, for example, is the description of the three-phase model of media representations of gender and the Internet under section 2. It is unclear what are those assertions founded on, besides "the author's long term observation of the media" - is there empirical data? Can the author provide illustrations to support her inferences? This particular section also talks vaguely about the "media", "media reporting today" etc. - overgeneralizing without specifying which media, where, in what circumstances, etc. It seems a sweeping and unbased argument, leading to a "Thus, it can be assumed" which is not grounded. The author in this section also disregard the rival or at least complementing literature regarding women and the Internet (see for example Harcourt, Wendy, Ed. 1999, Women @ Internet: Creating new cultures in cyberspace. London: Zed Books). This leads me to the second, related point, which is two-folded: on one hand, most of the reference list is based on German sources, with a disregard to much of the literature available in this area outside of Europe. On the other hand, the author hardly makes any notice of the particular professional-culturalsocial context of German society in which this study was conducted. The reader gets the impression that these women professionals are not situated anywhere and that they are disconnected from a social context. It would have been very illuminating to learn about the unique place of women in German society in general and in the occupation world in particular, to better understand the circumstances of the study and its implications. At the same time, if the author wishes to suggest that the results have implications to the rest of the world, she needs to make more comprehensive reference to the relevant literature developing in other places. Thirdly, there is no clear statement of the research question or purpose, beyond a vague and much too general statement “to gain an adequate perspective on the process of gender positioning in everyday work contexts." In the methodological section it will be helpful to find out more about the selection of interviewees, refusal rate (how many were approached?), where were they conducted, who conducted them (the footnote provides a name, but it is unclear who this person is in terms of training and background), etc. I would also suggest moving the last paragraph in section 4.1 ("With respect to age,..") before the one above it ("The interviews were….).

5

A major concern I have regarding reporting of the findings, which can be easily resolved, is the insufficient empirical exemplars in the text. For example, in section 4.2. there is a discussion ("All of the women interviewed….") which makes sweeping inferential leaps without any illustrations from the interviews, and the one quote in this section seems incidental to the argument. Similarly, throughout the text, there are many unsupported statements and conclusions. For example, in section 4.6. "Another interesting aspect…" and "Many of the women professionals…" In section 4.7 " Almost all of the persons…" , "The ready availability of sex…", and "A similar effect…". In section 4.8. "Contrary to expectations…" and "Playing with gender identities…" Those are all very fascinating ideas that could be significantly clarified and strengthened by providing exemplars of excerpts from the interviews on which they are based. As it stands, many of the ideas presented are just that - unsupported descriptive assertions. Finally, I find the conclusion to be very underdeveloped and in many ways disconnected to the article. It is not clear how the conclusion is related to the data presented in the article. This brief section is not really a conclusion but more a statement of what might be needed in the future. It is certainly interesting and worthwhile, but needs to be better connected to the article from which it presumable emerged. I would like to strongly encourage the author to consider these suggestions and to revise the manuscript so it can be published. I would very much like to see such a discussion of gender and technology in the journal of New media and Society, and I believe that all of my comments could be worked out satisfactory. I wish the author good luck. Reviewer 2 I've now read ‘[title of article]’. My recommendation is 'accept with (substantial) revision', for reasons outlined below. All of these comments may be sent to the author. This is a very interesting and well-written paper about the experiences of women internet professionals in Austria. It is of general significance and appropriate for the readership of [journal]. However, there are a number of areas where reference needs to be made to relevant literature and/or some clarification needs to be provided. Given that I received an electronic version without page numbers, I shall refer to section numbers and paragraph numbers where appropriate. Section 1, final para, and elsewhere in text: This is quite possibly a failing on my part as I do not work centrally within media studies but I do not understand precisely what is meant by a technology being 'coded' masculine. A short explanation and reference to relevant literature would be helpful for the nonspecialist reader. Section 2: This is an area I know rather more about, and I find the way in which the phases of the Internet are represented here rather problematic. Other phasings are certainly possible (see for example [title of literature]). What is problematic here is the way that this is presented as inevitable and natural. The Internet, like any other technology, has a complex and conflict-ridden history. There were alternatives. On matters of detail, I would say the quick profit feature is more characteristic of the third phase, late 1990s, dot com boom and bust; and that standardization was crucial to the early second phase and the rise of TCP/IP at the expense of other standards such as OSI. The discussion which follows about media representations of particular phases would be strengthened by having some examples. 4.1 Method and sample - could say more about ways in which Haug's ideas of memory work are useful; what is the added value to qualitative interviews? There is a recent book edited by F Henwood, H Kennedy & N Miller, _Cyborg Lives? WOmen's technobiographies_ York, UK: Raw Nerve Press, 2001 which might be helfpul. 4.3 - I guess ADP means administrative data processing but this does need to be spelled out the first time it is used.

6

4.3 - final paragraph - this data on salary is only meaningful if compared with men. My guess is that exactly the same pattern would be found for male internet professionals. Large corporations pay more than small internet start-ups. Also see article by T Terranova, 2000 'Free labor: Producing culture for the digital economy' _Social TExt_ 18, 2: 33-58 (available online: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/social_text ) She discusses the relationship between small internet/multimedia companies and their larger competitors, with reference to gendered divisions of labour. 4.5 - miss some historical awareness here. In the early days of computing, programming was women's work. Work of Philip Kraft in the US springs to mind, but don't have full reference. 4.6 - some context is necessary regarding the Austrian labour market 5 - Conclusion is rather short, and unconvincing. Data could just as easily be interpreted to suggest that some women - admittedly, highly educated with good ICT skills - are challenging the cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity around technology. Despite some negative experiences at school and work, some women do succeed and do get pleasure from technical skill. It is not at all clear how the analysis can account for this if it seeks to stick to binary categories.

1D: SAMPLE OF LETTER REQUESTING REVISION BEFORE SUITABLE FOR EXTERNAL REVIEW Dear Dr [name]: I have read your article "[title of ms]" and am afraid I must inform you that it is not suitable, in its present form, for publication in [title of journal]. Articles published in [journal] are expected to be grounded in or to contribute to theoretical issues. The topic of your article is certainly appropriate for the journal, but we would expect a more general theoretical discussion - related to the [country] situation as you provide near the end of the manuscript. I would recommend this discussion, both the general and specific aspects of it, to be placed before the empirical data and discussion you provide on advertisements. The information on penetration of the Internet is interesting, but peripheral to the central concern of the nature of ads in [country] culture - as I understand the objective of your work. I would suggest making clear that this is merely contextual information and, as such, can be limited. Now, it seems as if this background information is given undue elaboration. I would recommend you revise the manuscript and resubmit it for consideration. On receipt of a revised version, with more theoretical elaboration, I will then send the work out for peer review. Please let me know whether you plan to resubmit the manuscript and, if so, when we may expect to receive it. Sincerely, [name of editor]

7

1E: STANDARD LETTER REQUESTING REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPT Name Reviewer University Email: { } Date Dear (name reviewer): (name journal) has recently received a submission which I would like you to review, entitled '(title of article)'. The article is attached to this letter. Kindly confirm whether you are able to provide us with an assessment of the manuscript. We would appreciate receiving your review within about three weeks. In your review, we would appreciate that you take the following points into consideration: * originality * discussion of relevant literature * contribution to theory and/or policy issues * clarity of argument * appropriateness of conclusions. Please indicate whether you would recommend one of the three courses of action: * acceptance * acceptance with (substantial) revision * rejection * unsuitable for (name journal). Kindly indicate which of your comments we may anonymously share with the author. Please email your assessment to the email address noted below. We would appreciate receipt of your comments within three weeks from the time this manuscript reaches you. Thanks again. Sincerely, (name editor)

1F: SAMPLES OF REVIEWS NOT PARTICULARLY HELPFUL TO AN AUTHOR Dear Sir I reviewed the article ‘[title]'. My comments: Originality: poor--the article is a not very well organized bundle of ideas which are poorly analyzed discussion of relevant literature: poor contribution to theory and/or policy issues: none clarity of argument: very weak appropriateness of conclusions: not recommendations: rejection

8

Sincerely

* originality; a very interesting peace of work on the economics of [topic], suitable for [name of journal]. However, it concerns research in an exploratory phase, and this should be stated with more emphasis in the abstract, the introduction and the conclusions of this article * discussion of relevant literature; although there is only a single theoretical perspective (industrial organization theory), the author adequately describes points of departure and limitations of this perspective, adding sufficient examples from everyday practice in (electronic) publishing * contribution to theory and/or policy issues; as stated above, it must be emphasized that this research in still in an exploratory phase from a theoretical perspective. As to policy issues, I would be pleased if the author elaborated on the implications to copyright policy (page 26 policy implications). What are the arguments from this research to adopt a specific copyright policy? * clarity of argument; OK * appropriateness of conclusions; The main conclusion "The prediction that relatively high diversity and low prices..." etc. (page 24) seems a correct one and should be incorporated in the abstract (there is still enough room there) instead of the phrase "..for unexpected reasons" I would recommend: * acceptable for publication with minor revisions as noted.

2: JOURNAL STYLE GUIDES AND INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS

Below is information collected from the web sites of the following journals: Journal of ComputerMediated Communication (JCMC), Javnost-The Public, Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research (EJCR), and the Electronic Journal of Communication (EJC). This information should be considered carefully when preparing a manuscript for submission. In addition, it is strongly advised that a prospective author examine a number of the previous issues of the journal to which the manuscript is to be submitted. JCMC http://jcmc.indiana.edu/submit.html Guidelines for authors: Articles submitted to JCMC should make a contribution to knowledge in the field of computermediated communication. No one discipline, and no single methodology is viewed as inherently superior. Research based in any of the social sciences is welcome. Acceptable articles will most frequently join theoretical analysis with empirical investigation, and/or incorporate demonstration or simulation. Reviews, synthesis, and meta-analyses of prior research are also welcome. In all cases, the implications for future work should be discussed. Rigorous argumentation and presentation are expected. The use of abstracts, introduction and conclusion sections is encouraged. However, authors are encouraged to venture into using the wider bandwidth and removal of linearity constraints made available by JCMC's format. Innovative forms of expressing research, and/or linking members of the scientific community, are welcome.

9

Publication procedure: Articles submitted should be full-length scholarly papers (roughly 25-30 pages). Articles may be written in any format. Articles may contain any combination of text, tables, graphics, animation, or audio component. JCMC editors will make every possible effort to accommodate presentation formats. Authors unfamiliar with non-text file formats or who are not familiar with methods for linking their documents to other materials may turn to the JCMC staff for assistance in incorporating pictures, sound clips, and links to other sources into their text. However, clear, comprehensible, compact and considerate presentation are expected. These dimensions will be used as criteria in the review process. The academic citation style used in JCMC follows the most recent American Psychological Association Manual of Style. In addition or instead, authors are encouraged to use HTML pointer structure to online reference lists, as such become available. Articles will be reviewed in a double-blind fashion, shielding authors' and reviewers' identities wherever possible. Authors should take pains to remove all pointers to their own identity or to that of their institution. Acknowledgements of receipt will be sent by e-mail within a week of the date of submission. All articles will be reviewed by the editors and two referees. The advice of a third referee will be sought as warranted. The decision of the editors and the referees' reviews will be returned by email unless the author requests response by surface mail at the time of submission. Submissions to JCMC should be sent by email. Submissions to the journal MUST be accompanied by a "cover note" e-mailed to the editors. In addition to the paper itself, please attach a separate notice describing in short (1) the submitted article, (2) the format(s) used in its presentation, and (3) providing brief bios, e-mail and mailing addresses for author(s). Binary components (graphics, sound files, etc.) may also be sent as attachments to email. At present, preferred formats for submission are HTML, MS-Word or plain ASCII text. Zipped archives containing all files are especially preferred. The submission of an article to JCMC implies that the author certifies that neither the article nor any of its parts is copyrighted or currently under review for any journal or conference proceedings. If the article, any portion of it, or any other version of it, has appeared, or is scheduled to appear in another publication of any kind, the details of such publication must be made known to the editors at the time of submission. JCMC encourages use of hypertext links. The above copyright notice DOES NOT apply to the incorporation of pointers to publicly available network sources. For example, an article may contain hypertext pointers to items in art collections on the network, or to JCMC itself, or to bibliographies available on the net. Unfortunately, many networked resources are ephemeral. Authors should assume responsibility for attempting to use "fresh" and long-living pointers.

Javnost – The Public http://www.javnost-thepublic.org/notes-for-authors/ Manuscript Preparation Manuscripts must be submitted in triplicate, in English or Slovene, together with an IBM compatible computer disk copy (3.5") in WordPerfect, Word, WordStar, or ASCII. To facilitate blind review, names and affiliations of authors should be listed on a separate title sheet. Length Maximum length of articles is 50,000 characters; other contributions may not exceed 25,000 characters. Titles Titles of articles should be concise and descriptive and should not exceed one hundred characters. Texts of more than 10,000 characters should include sub-heads: major sub-heads should appear on a separate line; secondary sub-heads appear flush left preceding the first sentence of a paragraph. Abstract

10

Extended abstracts (4,000 to 6,000 characters) are requested for all articles, preferably in both English and Slovene. Tables and Figures Each table or figure must appear on a separate page after the Notes. It should be numbered and carry a short title. Tables and figures are indicated in the text in the order of their appearance ("Insert Table 1 / Figure 1 about here.") Review Procedures All unsolicited articles undergo double-blind peer review. In most cases, manuscripts are reviewed by two referees. The editor reserves the right to reject any unsuitable manuscript without requesting an external review. References, Notes, and Citations References within the Text The basic reference format is (Novak 1994). To cite a specific page or part (Novak 1994, 7-8). Use "et al." when citing a work by more than three authors (Novak et al. 1994). The letters a, b, c, etc. should be used to distinguish different citations by the same author in the same year (Kosec 1934a; Kosec 1934b). Notes Essential notes, or citations of unusual sources, should be indicated by superscript numbers in the text and collected on a separate page at the end of the article. Author Notes and Acknowledgements Author notes identify authors by complete name, title, and affiliation. Acknowledgements may include information about financial support and other assistance in preparing the manuscript. Reference List All references cited in the text should be listed alphabetically and in full after the notes. References to Books or Part of Books Novak, Janez. 1982. Title of the Book: With Subtitle. Place: Publisher. Novak, Janez and Peter Kodre. 1967.Title of the Book. Place: Publisher. Novak, Janez. 1993. Title of the Chapter. In P. Kodre (ed.), Title of the Book, 123-145. Place: Publisher. Refrences to Journals Novak, Janez. 1991. Title of Article. Name of Journal 2, 265-287.

EJC http://www.cios.org/www/ejcauthors.htm Editorial Policy EJC/REC is devoted to the study of communication theory, research, practice, and policy. Manuscripts reporting original research, methodologies relevant to the study of human communication, critical syntheses of research, and theoretical and philosophical perspectives on communication are welcome. Submission Authors submitting papers for publication in EJC/REC warrant that their papers are not currently under consideration by any other publication and that the material contained within the work is not subject to any other copyright, unless consents as required are obtained. Authors agree, in any other publication of the work, to credit the publication of the work in EJC/REC. Word processing conventions for producing text electronically vary greatly. To produce text that everyone can receive, download, and print, manuscripts appearing in EJC/REC must conform to a universal standard. Thus, manuscripts must be submitted in electronic form using ASCII text format or HTML text format. ASCII text consists of plain, un-processed text, without special formatting or embedded characters. HTML is a mark-up language used to produce text for the World Wide Web. Most word processors have a utility for transforming word-processed text into ASCII or HTML text format; consult the Special Editor or Managing Editor if there are problems in creating an ASCII or HTML text.

11

In some cases it may be possible to scan a manuscript submitted on paper in order to convert it to electronic format. Please consult the Special Editor and Managing Editor if you would like to explore this option. Ideally, manuscripts should be submitted in ASCII or HTML text format via electronic mail to the Internet address of the Special Editor or the Managing Editor. Additionally, manuscripts in ASCII or HTML format may be submitted on floppy disks sent to the postal address of the appropriate editor via the postal service. Generally, any IBM/DOS disk format will be acceptable (5-1/4", 360K or 1.2M; 31/2", 720K or 1.44M); however, acceptable disk formats may vary for specific special issues. Consult the call for papers for a given issue for further instructions. Files appearing in ASCII or HTML format on Macintosh disks can be transferred to IBM disks or uploaded for electronic mail by the CIOS staff. Contact the CIOS staff ([email protected]) for assistance. Submissions should be accompanied by a "cover sheet" providing information about the author(s), the manuscript, and acknowledgments. See below (B.8) for cover sheet information. The Managing Editor for EJC/REC is Teresa M. Harrison (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute); she may be contacted by electronic mail at [email protected] Alternatively, you may write to her at the Department of Language, Literature, and Communication, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12180. Style guidelines Except for the conventions noted in these instructions, manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with the _Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association_ (4th ed.) or the _MLA Handbook_. In some instances, it may be possible to prepare manuscripts following other style guides (e.g., Chicago Manual of Style, etc.). Check with the Special Editor of the issue to which you are submitting or the Managing Editor if you are considering using style guides other than the APA or MLA conventions. Contact the Special Editor or Managing Editor with any style/format questions that are not covered by these instructions. Preparation of Manuscripts General guidelines: Manuscripts should be submitted in English. Single space most text. Insert blank lines between paragraphs, between headings and text, and between reference notes. In general, do not hyphenate words across lines. Hyphens may be used in words that normally contain them, as in: hypothetico-deductive. If you are using ASCII text format, do not underline; instead, use an underscore character at the beginning and at the end of emphasized text, as in: _Do not_ underline. Also, use underscored characters to identify titles within the text, as in: _Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association_. If you are using HTML text format, you may underline or italicize whenever appropriate. Title and author information: The title of the manuscript should appear centered at the beginning of the file, in capital letters. Skip two blank lines and list each author's name and institutional affiliation (upper and lower case), also centered. Skip one blank line between each author's name/affiliation. Below is an example of how title and author lines should appear. THE OPERANTCY OF PRACTICAL CRITICISM Steven R. Brown Kent State University Margaret Mathieson University of Leicester Margins: Format manuscripts with left margins set at column 1, right margins set at column 60. Do not justify the text at the right margin. Long quotations can be set off from the text as a free standing block (do not use quotation marks). Position this material within margins set at column 6 and column 55. Again, do not justify text at the right margin.

12

Headings: Major headings within the text should be centered. Subheadings should appear on lines flush with the left margins. When three levels of headings are required, use centered major headings, flush side sub-headings, and indented paragraph headings, followed by a period. Do not underline headings. All headings should appear in upper and lower case. Abstracts: Manuscripts should be accompanied by an abstract of 200 words or less preceding the text of the manuscript. The abstract should appear between the author's information and the beginning of the manuscript text. Abstracts should be positioned within columns 6 and 55. References and Notes: All references and notes should appear at the end of the manuscript. Endnote numbers within the text and in the list of notes should appear inside square brackets (e.g., [1]). If square brackets are not available, use ampersand characters (e.g., &1&). Insert blank lines between items in lists of notes and references. If you are using ASCII format, do not underline titles or volume numbers in a reference. If you are using HTML text format, you may underline or italicize whenever appropriate. Tables, Graphs, and Figures: Tables, graphs, and figures may appear in two ways. First, tables, graphs, and figures can appear within the text itself, as close as possible to discussion in the manuscript that is relevant to them. Format tables within margins set at 1 and 60 columns. Skip two lines before and after the presentation of the table, figure, or graph. Tables, graphs, and figures should be accompanied by titles; table, graph, or figure number in arabic numerals; and explanatory notes. Set off tables, graphs, and figures from the text by lines composed of equal signs, preceded by and followed by a blank line, as in: =============================================== Table 1. This is the first table. 12342223232323232323232323232323232323232323 =============================================== Alternatively, tables, graphs, and figures can appear in GIF or JPG format. Please make sure that these files are identified appropriately within the text. Include a cover sheet or letter with your submission that contains the following information: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

First author's name First author's address First author's E-mail address First author's phone number and fax number (if available) Add other authors' names and addresses as necessary Style guide employed: (check one or specify) APA Publication Manual __________ MLA Handbook __________ Other (please check with editor): ___________________________________ 7. Acknowledgements and relevant information about the history of the manuscript (thesis/dissertation, presented at conferences, etc.): Articles published in EJC/REC (ISSN 1183-5656) are protected by copyright (c) by the Communication Institute for Online Scholarship. Articles may be reproduced, with acknowledgment, for non-profit personal and scholarly purposes. Permission must be obtained for commercial use or for distribution to other individuals.

Journal of Medical Internet Research

13

http://www.jmir.org Although this journal is intended for a different public, the web site and information provided for prospective authors is very through and merits examination.

3: REFERENCE MATERIALS FOR SCHOLARLY WRITING Below are several categories of reference materials that may be helpful in preparing manuscripts for submission to a scholarly journal. This list is not complete; suggestions for additions are welcome. Overview of Journals The Iowa Guide: Scholarly Journals in Mass Communication and Related Fields http://fm.iowa.uiowa.edu/fmi/xsl/iowaguide/search.xsl This online publication is perhaps the most thorough overview of journals related to communication studies. It is an indespensible source in scanning suitable titles for submitting a manuscript for consideration. General Publication Style guides AGPS Press (1988). Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers (4th Ed.). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. American Psychological Association (2001). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th Ed.). Washington, DC: Author. CBE Style Manual Committee (1983). CBE Style (5th rev. and expanded ed). Bethesda: Council of Biology Editors. Gibaldi, J. & Lindenberger, H.B. (1998). MLA Style Manual and guide to scholarly publishing (2nd Ed.). New York: Modern Language Association of America. University of Chicago Press (1993). Chicago Manual of Style (14th Ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Websites www.apastyle.org/elecref.html  guidelines for citing electronic resources www.apastyle.org/previoustips.html  tips by APA on various elements of style www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq  short overview of the Chicago style of citing text www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/cmosfaq.html  overview of how to use the Chicago style www.lib.ohio-state.edu/guides/chicagogd.html  short overview of the Chicago style of citing text www.lib.ohio-state.edu/guides/apagd.html  short overview of how to use the APA style

14

www.library.wwu.edu/ref/Refhome  index of documents on style guides Books on publishing academic work Adams Day, R. (1998). How to write and publish a scientific paper. Cambridge: University Press. Alexander, A. & Potter, W.J. (2001). How to publish your communication research. An insider’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA.: SAGE Publications. Day, A. (1996). How to get research published in journals. Hampshire: Gower Publishing. Derricourt, R. (1996). An author’s guide to scholarly publishing. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kupfersmid, J. & Wonderfly, D.M. (1994). An author’s guide to publishing better articles in better journals in the behavioral sciences. Brandon, Vermont: Clinical Psychology Publishing Co., Inc. Light, R.J. & Pillemer, D.B. (1984). Summing up: the science of reviewing research. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. McInerney, D.M. (2001). Publishing your psychology research. A guide to writing for journals in psychology and related fields. Crows Nest, Australia: SAGE Publications. Mullins, C.J. (1977). A guide to writing and publishing in the social and behavioral sciences. New York: Wiley. University of Chicago Press (1987). Chicago guide to preparing electronic manuscripts: for authors and publishers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

References on English grammar Fowler, H.W. (1965). A dictionary of Modern English Usage (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gramley, S., & Pätzold, K.M. (1992). A Survey of Modern English. London: Routledge. Greenbaum, S. (1996). The Oxford English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1994). A Communicative Grammar of English (2nd Ed.). London: Longman. Nicholson, M. (1957). A dictionary of American-English Usage. New York: Oxford University Press. Quirk, R., & Greenbaum, S. (1973). A University Grammar of English. London: Longman Group Limited. Quirk, R., Leech, S., & Svartivik, J. (1972). A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman. Whitford, R.C. & Foster, J.R. (1956). Concise dictionalry of American Grammar and usage. New York: Philosophical Library General writing guides Becker, H.S. (1986). Writing for social scientists: how to start and finish your thesis, book or article. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press. Cuba, L. & Cocking, J. (1994). How to write about social sciences. London: HarperCollinsPublishers

15

Gibaldi, J. & Achtert, W.S. (1988). MLA Handbook for writers of research papers (3rd ed.). NewYork: the Modern Language Association of America. Harnack, A & Kleppinger,, E. (1998). Online! A reference guide to Using Internet Sources. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Kaye, S. (1989). Writing under pressure. New York: Oxford University Press. Kirszner, L.G. & Mandell, S.R. (2002). The Holt Handbook (6th Ed.). Boston: Thomson & Heinle. Lester, J.D. (1999). Writing Research Papers: a complete guide. New York: Longman Li, X. & Crane, N.B. (1996). Electronic styles. A handbook for citing electronic information. Medford, N.J.: Information Today, Inc. Mainsey, C. (2002). Essays and dissertations: one step ahead. Oxford: Oxford University Press Redman, P. (2001). Good essay writing. A social sciences guide (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications. Rudestam, K.E. & Newton, R.R. (2001). Surviving your dissertation. A comprehensive guide to content and process (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Tannacito, D.J. (1995). A guide to writing in English as a second or foreign language: an annotated bibliography of research and pedagogy. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to speakers of other languages (TESOL). Turabian, K.L. (1996). A Manual for writers of Terms, Papers, Theses and Dissertations. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press. Turk, Chr. & Kirkman, J. (1982). Effective writing; improving scientific, technical and business communication. London: Spon Tze-Chung Li (1980). Social science reference sources: a practical guide. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Websites

• • •

Books on Writing for Graduate Students (University of Toronto) Guide to Grammar and Writing (Capital Community College Foundation) Overview of styles in citing text

4: REVIEWER ASSESSMENT FORM

Trends in Communication This journal uses the following review protocol for assessing submissions TIC Review protocol Review Sheet for Manuscript No. Title (please fill in):

Reviewer:

Part I: Please answer the following questions. Excellent

Very Good

16

Good

Average

Fair

Poor

Not Acceptable

Likely significance and potential contribution to field Strength of theoretical foundations Quality of the methodology and/or analytical techniques Clarity of organisation and/or writing Fit with journal special issue theme Interpretations/conclusions are sound and justified by data Quality of the English language Quality of illustrations and tables References are Likelihood of drawing and keeping an audience Overall rating Recommendation: Accept Minor revisions Major revisions Reject Yes

No

Is this a new and original contribution?

Can you suggest brief additions or amendments (words, phrases) or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience?

17

Comment

5: MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION CHECKLIST FOR AUTHORS New Media & Society

Please ensure that the following information is provided on the final version of manuscripts submitted to NM&S: 1.

Manuscript (ms) cover sheet with full author address, affiliation and other contact details including email address wherever possible.

2.

Title page with: full title subtitle (optional) preferred abbreviated running head abstract (100-150 words): background; aim; method; results; conclusion key words (5-10): in alphabetical order for searching online, may include words already in title ms word count

3.

Numbered text pages, double-spaced.

4.

Endnotes: typed, double-spaced, at the end of the text, before the References.

5.

References: typed, double-spaced at the end of the paper. Important: check that references in text are noted in the list of references at the end of the paper and vice versa. References in text should be prepared as follows: (Levy, 1995), or with page citation: (Levy, 1995: 25).

6.

Acknowledgements and biographical notes (if relevant): typed double spaced on a separate sheet. Biographical notes (100-150 words) should give current affiliation, research interests and recent publications.

7.

Tables. Each table should have an explanatory caption and be presented on a separate sheet at the end of the paper. Check that each table is cited in the text.

8.

Figures. See instructions for tables above. If possible, figures should be supplied electronically as TIFF or EPS files but clear paper copy also needed for sizing. Computer generated tints and shading should be avoided as they seldom reproduce well; use cross-hatching instead. Line artwork supplied as hard copy should be ready for scanning and not need redrawing. Photographs should preferably be black/white glossy prints or slides with good contrast. Reproduction from colour prints or slides is possible but of less good quality. Check that each figure is cited in the text.

9.

Formal letter of permission is required to reproduce any material from other sources.

10. A disk containing an identical version of the final version of the hard copy is to be submitted. 11. Check that references are prepared as noted below: Books and articles in books Livingstone, S. and P. Lunt (1994) Talk on Television: Audience Participation and Public Debate. London: Routledge. Murdock, G. (1998) 'Thin Descriptions: Questions of Method in Cultural Analysis', in J. McGuigan (ed.) Cultural Methodologies, pp. 178-92. London: Sage. Journals Calabrese, A. and M. Brochert (1996) 'The New Canals of Amsterdam: An Exercise in Local Electronic Democracy', Media, Culture & Society 18(2): 249-68. Papers Frissen, V. and Punie, Y. (1997) 'Never Mind the Gap: Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in ICT-User-Research. The Case of Busy Households', paper presented at 6th EMTEL Conference, Barcelona, 7-9 November. Website Garton, L., C. Haythornthwaite, and B. Wellman (1997) 'Studying Online Social Networks', Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3(1), URL (consulted Feb. 1998): http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol3/issue1/ 12. Once accepted for publication, the article, disk, copyright form and other materials noted above should be sent to: [name of editor, contact information]

18