1. Publishing in Academic Journals:
Procedures & Practices
Nicholas W. Jankowski
Co-editor
New Media & Society
Visiting Fellow
Virtual Knowledge Studio for the Humanities and Social Sciences (VKS)
Materials for:
Workshop Scientific Publishing
Organized and hosted by
Doctoral School of Communication Studies
Finland
November 11, 2010
Virtual Knowledge Studio for the Humanities and Social Sciences (VKS)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Cruquiusweg 31
1019 AT Amsterdam, NL
T: +3120 850270
F: +3120 8500271
E: nickjan@xs4all.nl
1

2. INTRODUCTION
This collection of materials serves as background for a workshop at the Doctoral School of
Communication Studies on publishing in scholarly journals, to be held at the University of Tampere, 11
November 2010. Some of these materials relate to a journal that I co-edit: New Media & Society
(NM&S); others are based on journal theme issues that I have prepared for the Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication (JCMC), Javnost, Communications: The European Journal of
Communication Research, (EJCR), Information Polity, and the Electronic Journal of Communication
(EJC).
The following materials are included in this collection:
 correspondence between editors and authors
 journal style guides
 resources materials
I recommend persons attending the workshop examine the New Media & Society website, particularly
the submission guidelines. The website maintained by Sage Publications for NM&S is also valuable to
consult. Participants should inspect back issues of NM&S and other titles addressing new media and
digital culture; for Sage Publications titles, see Sage Journals Online. In addition, please read the
following text describing generic problems with manuscript submissions:
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. 164-
182). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Portions of the above chapter are available on Google books.
Nick Jankowski
September 2010
2

3. CORRESPONDENCE
COVER LETTER ACCOMPANYING SUBMISSION OF MANUSCRIPT
[Note: many journals request submissions to be uploaded to an editorial management system, such as
ScholarOne, Berkeley Electronic Press, and Manuscript Online; these systems are usually maintained
by the publisher of the journal or, as in the case of NM&S, by the journal editors.]
Editor
Address
Date
Dear Professor (surname professor),
Please find attached a manuscript we wish to have considered for publication in (name journal). The
manuscript is entitled (title article) and has been prepared by (name author(s)). We believe that this
paper fits well with the type of material published by (abbreviated name of 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 (abbreviated name of journal) submission
requirements. In order to ensure that the names of the authors of the manuscript remain anonymous, we
have replaced references by the authors noted in the text with ‘Author’.
The journal submission guidelines request that potential referees be suggested. We propose (name
referee) and (name referee) as reviewers for this paper.
We look forward to your response to our submission.
Yours sincerely,
(author)
LETTERS FROM EDITORS
[Note: this letter indicates a decision not to solicit external reviews for a submission because the work
is considered unsuitable for the journal to which submitted. This is a ‘rejection letter’ based on an
internal review by the journal’s editors.]
Dear Dr [name]:
We have received your submission [title] to New Media & Society and had an opportunity to read it.
We regret to inform you that we do not consider the work suitable for publication in NM&S. We would
suggest you consider another journal such as [title] for submission of this and other manuscripts along
these lines.
We would like to thank you again for submitting this manuscript, and wish you success in finding a
suitable venue for the work.
With very best regards,
[names editors]
3

4. [Note: The following letter reflects interest on the part of a journal’s editors for a submission, but the
editors feel the work is not yet ready for formal, external review. Such a letter is only sent when the
topic is of particular interest to the journal editors.]
Dear Dr [name]:
We have read your article "[title of ms]" and regret to 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
provided near the end of the manuscript. We would recommend that this discussion be placed before
the empirical data and discussion of it.
The information on penetration of the Internet is interesting, but peripheral to the central concern of the
nature of ads in [country] culture - as we understand the objective of your work. We suggest
abbreviating this contextual information.
We recommend you revise the manuscript and resubmit it for consideration. On receipt of a revised
version, with more theoretical elaboration, we will solicit external reviews of the manuscript.
Please let us know whether you plan to resubmit the manuscript and, if so, when we may expect to
receive it.
Sincerely,
[names of editors]
LETTER REQUESTING REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPT
[Note: This is the standard letter sent to candidate reviewers of a submission to NM&S.]
Dear [reviewer’s name]:
We would like to ask that you serve as one of the reviewers of the manuscript, "[title]," which
has been submitted to New Media & Society. The abstract of the manuscript is inserted
below; kindly let us know whether you will be able to undertake this task.
Please log into the journal website by [date] to indicate whether you will be able to complete
the review or not, as well as to access the submission and to record your review and
recommendation. The website is [URL].
The review is due [date]. In accordance with the blind refereeing policy followed by NM&S,
please do not include identifying information in the review. (If you upload a file there may be
identifying information embedded in it, for example files created in Microsoft Word might
include identifying information in the "Properties" section of the document, please make sure
to double-check for such things before uploading and remove them.)
We are interested in your assessment of the manuscript, taking the following points into
consideration:
1. Is this manuscript appropriate for New Media & Society? If not, can you suggest another
journal that might be more appropriate?
2. Is the subject matter important?
4

5. 3. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies
of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?
4. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or
making judgments?
5. Is the article well written?
6. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?
We appreciate your willingness to undertake this important task for NM&S in determining the
suitability of this submission for publication.
Sincerely,
[editor’s names]
[include title of submission and abstract]
SAMPLE REVIEWS
[Note: the fictive reviews attached to this cover letter reflect the kind of detailed reviews NM&S strives
to share with authors. Some journals prefer multiple-choice assessment forms and an illustration of
such a form is included in this section.]
Dear [name of author]:
We have received two reviews of your submission to [name of journal], entitled "[title of article]". The
reviews are pasted below, and they contain extensive comments and suggestions. Although the
reviewers recommend revision of your manuscript before acceptance for publication, they are generally
positive about the importance of your presentation and argument.
We recommend you consider these comments and suggestions, and resubmit the work for
consideration. Please include a detailed letter indicating how the comments from the reviewers have
been addressed in the revised version. On receipt of the revised manuscript the editors may decide to
consult the reviewers in a second round of assessment. This procedure may take an additional number
of weeks, at which time we will share the reviews and our decision regarding publication of the
manuscript.
Please confirm receipt of this letter and indicate when we may expect to receive a revised version of
your article.
Thank you; we 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
5

6. 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. - over-
generalizing 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-cultural-
social 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….).
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.
6

7. 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 non-
specialist 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.
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
7

8. 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.
[Note: The two reviews below are illustrative of assessments with limited value to either author or
editor.]
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
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.
8

9. Assessment form for reviews
[Note: The journal Trends in Communication ceased publication in 2005, but until then used 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 Average Fair Poor Not
Good 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 Comment
Is this a new and original contribution?
9

10. 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?
Cover letter from author accompanying revised manuscript
[Note: the cover letter accompanying the revised manuscript is an important component in the
submission process because it allows the editors and reviewers to read how the authors of the
manuscript have revised the work. There are many suitable ways to prepare such a letter; the following
example reflects an informal tone adequate to the task, but some authors prefer a more formal style
and some include a table noting changes.]
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 it 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
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
10

11. 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 in-
depth 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.
JOURNAL STYLE GUIDES
Below is information collected from the websites of the following journals and reflects the various
styles followed: Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC), Javnost-The Public,
Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research (EJCR), and the Electronic
Journal of Communication (EJC). The information provided by a journal should be considered
carefully when preparing a manuscript for submission. In addition, authors should examine previous
issues of the journal to which the manuscript is submitted.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (old URL: JCMC ) (new URL: JCMC)
Guidelines for authors:
Articles submitted to JCMC should make a contribution to knowledge in the field of computer-
mediated 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
11

12. 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.
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
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
12

13. 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.
The Electronic Journal of Communication (EJC )
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.
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
13

14. 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; 3-
1/2", 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 (Support@cios.org) 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 Harrison@rpi.edu 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). 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.
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.
14

15. 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. First author's name
2. First author's address
3. First author's E-mail address
4. First author's phone number and fax number (if available)
5. Add other authors' names and addresses as necessary
6. 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
Although this journal is intended for scholars interested in medical fields, the website and information
provided for prospective authors is very through and merits examination.
15

16. Checklist
[Note: Most journals provide a checklist of items that should be checked prior to submission of (the
final version of) a manuscript. Below is the list previously distributed to authors by NM&S.]
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 reference list.
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. 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/
16

17. RESOURCES
Many resources are available to authors preparing manuscripts for submission to scholarly journals.
The lists below are incomplete, but reflect the range of available material.
Overviews of Journals
Often, professional societies maintain lists of journals that publish in their areas of scholarship. The
Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) provides such a service, which is part of the AoIR wiki.
There are other resources valuable to consult, such as the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ),
which serves as a portal to more than 5000 journal titles.
General Publication Style guides
Although there are many style guides, three are dominant in the humanities and social sciences. The
most commonly used in the social sciences is APA (American Psychological Association) style. The
Chicago Manual of Style is used in many of the disciplines in the social sciences and humanities; the
MLA Style Manual serves disciplines related to language and literature. The Harvard author-date
referencing system is the choice of many journals such as those of Sage Publications. University
libraries often maintain websites with abbreviated versions of the style guides. Many institutions
organize workshops for their staff and students, and these materials are sometimes available online; see
list of websites below.
 American Psychological Association (2009). Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (6th Ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
 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 (2010). The Chicago Manual of Style (16th Ed.) Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Websites
A large assortment of Web-based materials is available to prospective authors. Many university
libraries provide such resources, including specialized tutorials and workshops on topics such as
reference management software (e.g., EndNote, RefWorks). Some institutions, such as the Department
of Communication Studies at the University of Iowa, maintain extensive overviews of online resources.
 APA Style
 Chicago Manual of Style
 Ohio State University site on Chicago Manual; on APA Citation Guide
 Purdue Online Writing Lab. Materials related to APA Style
 University of Toronto, Books on writing for graduate students
 Capital Community College, Guide to grammar & writing
 University of Iowa, online communication studies resources
Editorial services
Some publishers, like Elsevier, provide language editing services. Other publishers direct authors to
commercial services. Below are two services mentioned in the Sage Publications guidelines for
authors:
 SPi Professional Editing Services
 Bioscience Editing Solutions
Selection of books on scholarly publishing
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.
Belcher, W. L. (2009). Writing your journal article in twelve weeks. A guide to academic publishing
success. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
17

18. 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.
Germano, W. (2005). From dissertation to book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kitchin, R., & Fuller, D. (2005). The academic’s guide to publishing. London: Sage Publications.
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. (2002). Publishing your psychology research. A guide to writing for journals in
psychology and related fields. London: 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.
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.
18

19. 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.
19