Common acceptance rate calculation methods in communication journals: Developing best practices

Journalism and Mass Communication Educator

Volumn 65, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 168-186

  Perry, Stephen D ^a   Ichalski, Lindseym ^a  

^a ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85000113624     PISSN: 10776958     EISSN: 21614326     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/107769581006500206     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Lowell L. Hargens, “Scholarly Consensus and Journal Rejection Rates,” American Sociological Review
2. David A. Huettner and William Clark, “Comparative Research Productivity Measures for Economics Departments,” Journal of Economic Education 28 (1997): 272-78.
3. Alireza Tahai and Michael J. Meyer, “A Revealed Preferences Study of Management Journals’ Direct Influences,” Strategic Management Journal
4. Kirby P. Lee, Marieka Schotland, Peter Bacchetti, and Lisa A. Bero, “Association of Journal Quality Indicators with Methodological Quality of Clinical Research Articles,” Journal of the American Medical Association 21
5. Melvin L. DeFleur, “Raising the Question #5: What is Tenure and How Do I Get It?” Communication Education 56 (2007): 111.
6. Jonathan Adams, “Assessing Faculty Performance for Merit: An Academic Accomplishment Index,” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 58 (2003): 247.
7. Lee et al., “Association of Journal Quality Indicators with Methodological Quality of Clinical Research Articles.”
8. Louis C. Buffardi and Julia A. Nichols, “Citation Impact, Acceptance Rate, and APA Journals,” American Psychologist 36 (1981): 1453-56.
9. Marian M. Extejt and Jonathan E. Smith, “The Behavioral Sciences and Management: An Evaluation of Relevant Journals,” Journal of Management 16 (1990): 539-51.
10. Tahai and Meyer, “A Revealed Preferences Study of Management Journals’ Direct Influences.”
11. Tahai and Meyer, “A Revealed Preferences Study of Management Journals’ Direct Influences.”
12. Per O. Seglen, “Why the Impact Factor of Journals Should Not Be Used for Evaluating Research,” BMJ (1997)
13. Charlene M. Czerniak, “JSTE Editor-in-Chief Annual Report,” Journal of Science Teacher Education 18
14. Editor, “Editor’s Page,” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47 (2004): 1225-26; Editor, “Editor’s Page,” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 52 (2009): 1389.
15. Susan L. Brinson, “Editor’s Report,” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 53 (2009): 685-88.
16. National Communication Association, “Communication Education,” National Communication Association Index, http://www.natcom.org/index.asp?bid=238.
17. National Communication Association, “Communication Monographs,’’ National Communication Association Index, http://www.natcom.org/index.asp?bid=210.
18. Stephen D. Perry, “Health in Mass Communication and Society: The Field and the Journal,” Mass Communication and Society 13 (2009): 1-2.
19. Stephen D. Perry, “Where We Have Been and Where We Are Going,” Mass Communication and Society 12 314-497. (2007): 1-8. (2008): 1-3.
20. Perry, “Health in Mass Communication and Society: The Field and the Journal,” 1-2.
21. National Communication Association, National Communication Association Publication Manual (Washington, 2003), 58.
22. “Manuscript Submissions,” Newspaper Research Journal 21 (2000): inside back cover.
23. National Communication Association, “Communication and Criticall Cultural Studies,” National Communication Association Index, http://www.natcom.org/index.asp?bid=208.
24. National Communication Assolciation, “Communication Teacher,” National Communication Association Index, http://www.natcom.org/index.asp?bid=211.
25. Huettner and Clark, “Comparative Research Productivity Measures for Economics Departments.”
26. We were unable to determine the method used to automatically calculate the acceptance rates in the Scholarone 8 manuscript submission system. The number of manuscripts in the numerator and denominator of the automatic report could not be clearly duplicated through the detailed report of various manuscript categories in the database to which the authors had access.
27. Czernick, “JSTE Editor-in-Chief Annual Report,” 5.
28. The “reject and resubmit” category was not subject to sufficient scrutiny in the present study to be clearly included or excluded from then formula upon resubmit.
29. Czernick, “JSTE Editor-in-Chief Annual Report,” 1.
30. Though identifying information was optional and was separated from data, it was clear that participating editors represented journals from a variety of organizations from BEA to NCA and AEJMC. Various publishers were represented, and respondents represented journals ranked near the top for impact factor as well as minor journals.