View Item 

Show simple item record

The Seven Deadly Sins of Communication Research

dc.contributor.authorNeuman, W. Russellen_US
dc.contributor.authorDavidson, Roeien_US
dc.contributor.authorJoo, Sung-Heeen_US
dc.contributor.authorPark, Yong Jinen_US
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, Ann E.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T21:55:17Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T21:55:17Z
dc.date.issued2008-06en_US
dc.identifier.citationNeuman, W. Russell; Davidson, Roei; Joo, Sung-Hee; Park, Yong Jin; Williams, Ann E. (2008). "The Seven Deadly Sins of Communication Research." Journal of Communication 58(2): 220-237. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/74955>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0021-9916en_US
dc.identifier.issn1460-2466en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/74955
dc.format.extent334113 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Incen_US
dc.rights© 2008 International Communication Associationen_US
dc.titleThe Seven Deadly Sins of Communication Researchen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelCommunicationsen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationum1  Department of Communication Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48104en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationother2  Department of Communication, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israelen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationother3  Department of Communication, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30303en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/74955/1/j.1460-2466.2008.00382.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00382.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceJournal of Communicationen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArmstrong, J. S. ( 1980 ). Unintelligible management research and academic prestige. Interfaces, 10, 80 – 86.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArmstrong, J. S. ( 1997 ). Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3, 63 – 84.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBakanic, V., McPhail, C., & Simon, R. J. ( 1987 ). The manuscript review and decision-making process. American Sociological Review, 52, 631 – 642.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBakanic, V., McPhail, C., & Simon, R. J. ( 1989 ). Mixed messages: Referees’ comments on the manuscripts they review. Sociological Quarterly, 30, 639 – 654.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBeniger, J. R. ( 1990 ). Who are the most important theorists of communication? Communication Research, 17, 698 – 715.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBeniger, J. R. ( 1993 ). Communication—Embrace the subject, not the field. Journal of Communication, 43 ( 3 ), 18 – 25.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBonjean, C., & Hullum, J. ( 1978 ). Reasons for journal rejection: An analysis of 600 manuscripts. PS: Political Science and Politics, 11, 480 – 483.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBraxton, J. M., & Hargens, L. L. ( 1996 ). Variation among academic disciplines: Analytical frameworks and research. In J. C. Smart ( Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research ( Vol. 11, pp. 1 – 46 ). Boston: Kluwer Academic.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBryant, J., & Miron, D. ( 2004 ). Theory and research in mass communication. Journal of Communication, 54, 662 – 704.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBunz, U. ( 2005 ). Publish or perish: A limited author analysis of ICA and NCA journals. Journal of Communication, 55, 703 – 720.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCampanario, J. M. ( 1998 ). Peer review for journals as it stands today—Part 1. Science Communication, 19, 181 – 211.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChew, F. S. ( 1991 ). Fate of manuscripts rejected for publication in the AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology, 156, 627 – 632.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCicchetti, D. V. ( 1991 ). The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 119 – 186.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCole, J. R., & Cole, S. ( 1981 ). Peer review in the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCole, S., Rubin, L., & Cole, J. R. ( 1977 ). Peer review and the support of science. Scientific American, 237 ( 4 ), 34 – 41.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCraig, R. T. ( 1999 ). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9, 119 – 161.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDonsbach, W. ( 2006 ). The identity of communication research. Journal of Communication, 56, 437 – 448.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEisenberg, N., Thompson, M. S., Augir, S., & Stanley, E. H. ( 2002 ). ‘Getting in’ revisited: An analysis of manuscript characteristics, reviewers’ ratings, and acceptance of manuscripts in Psychological Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 997 – 1004.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFiske, D. W., & Fogg, L. ( 1990 ). But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper! American Psychologist, 45, 591 – 598.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGerbner, G. ( Ed.). ( 1983a ). Journal of Communication, 33 ( 3 ) Ferment in the field [Special issue].en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGerbner, G. ( 1983b ). The importance of being critical—In one’s own fashion. Journal of Communication, 33 ( 3 ), 355 – 362.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGuetzkow, H. ( 1950 ). Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data. Journal of Clinical Psychology 6, 47 – 58.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGuetzkow, J., Lamont, M., & Mallard, G. ( 2004 ). What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences? American Sociological Review, 69, 190 – 212.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHackett, E. J., & Chubin, D. E. ( 2003 ). Peer review for the 21st century: Applications to education research. Washington, DC: National Research Council.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHargens, L. L. ( 1988 ). Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review, 53, 139 – 151.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHarnard, S. ( 1979 ). Creative disagreement. Sciences, 19, 18 – 20.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJensen, K. B. ( 2000 ). On the edge: A meta-analysis of the state of media and communication research. Nordicom Review, 21 ( 2 ), 23 – 30.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKatz, E., Peters, J. D., Liebes, T., & Orloff, A. ( Eds.). ( 2003 ). Canonic texts in media research: Are there any? Should there be? How about these? Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLamont, M., & Mallard, G. ( 2005 ). Peer evaluation in the social sciences and the humanities compared: The United States, the United Kingdom, and France. Ottawa, Canada: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLamont, M., & Molnar, V. ( 2002 ). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167 – 195.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLevy, M., & Gurevitch, M. ( Eds.). ( 1993 ). Journal of Communication, 43 ( 3 & 4 ) [ Special issue ].en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLin, L. I.-K. ( 1989 ). A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics, 45, 255 – 268.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLin, Y., & Kaid, L. L. ( 2000 ). Fragmentation of the intellectual structure of political communication study: Some empirical evidence. Scientometrics, 47, 143 – 164.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLittlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. ( 2005 ). Theories of human communication ( 8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLivingstone, S. ( 1993 ). The rise and fall of audience research: An old story with a new ending. Journal of Communication, 43 ( 3 ), 5 – 12.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. ( 2002 ). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28, 587 – 604.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMerton, R. K. ( 1968 ). Social theory and social structure. New York: The Free Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePeters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. ( 1982 ). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 187 – 195.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePetty, R. E., Fleming, M. A., & Fabrigar, L. R. ( 1999 ). The review process at PSPB: Correlates of interreviewer agreement and manuscript acceptance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 188 – 203.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePool, I. d.S. ( 1983 ). What ferment? A challenge for empirical research. Journal of Communication, 33 ( 3 ), 258 – 261.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRice, R. E., Borgman, C. L., & Reeves, B. ( 1988 ). Citation networks of communication journals, 1977-1985. Human Communication Research, 15 ( 2 ), 256 – 283.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRogers, E. M., & Chaffee, S. H. ( 1993 ). The past and future of communication study: Convergence or divergence. Journal of Communication, 43 ( 3 ), 125 – 131.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceScott, W. ( 1970 ). Inter-referee agreement on some characteristics of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. American Psychologist, 29, 698 – 702.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStraub, D., Ang, S., & Evaristo, R. ( 1994 ). Normative standards for MIS research. Data Base, 25 ( 1 ), 21 – 34.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSwanson, D. ( 1993 ). Fragmentation, the field and the future. Journal of Communication, 43, 163 – 172.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWolff, W. M. ( 1970 ). A study of criteria for journal manuscripts. American Psychologist, 25, 636 – 669.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. ( 1971 ). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9 ( 1 ), 66 – 100.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
j.1460-2466.2008.00382.x.pdf
Size:
326.2KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.