Journalism History
E. W. SCRIPPS SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM
Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 45701-2979

Reviewing Guidelines

Here are some things that reviewers should keep in mind while reading the work of others:

1. Author's intent. What is the intent of the author? It is important to remember that this is someone else's manuscript – not your own. Try to see this subject as the author saw it; be careful not to impose your own agenda onto the article.
2. Focus. What is the focus of this manuscript? The author may be explicit about this (The purpose of this manuscript is to explore...) or may leave it implicit. But the sign of any good article is a clear focus that provides structure for the research and writing.
3. Interesting. Is this an interesting manuscript? Give credit to an author for creative or interesting writing; much of what we find in academic journals can be pretty dry. An interesting introduction – that opens the subject but also entices the reader – is quite valuable.
4. Method. How was the research done? Does the author signal what materials were analyzed and how they were analyzed? This can be explicit (I looked at sixteen newspapers in three time periods....) or implicit (look at the notes for citations to key documents, correspondence, etc.). Some sense of how the work was done is crucial.
5. Primary materials. Does the author do new and original research? In most instances that means a reliance on original materials (documents, correspondence, newspapers, etc.). In most cases, academic journals want original research based on original materials; most journals do not want term-paper type treatments that cobble together a study from research done by others (books, articles, etc.).
6. Significance. Does the author tell readers why this topic is important for journalism history? or for communications generally? It's imperative that the author should explain why readers should care about a topic. This can be difficult to do; authors are usually so close to their work – and so interested in it – that significance is never even seriously questioned. But the author and the reviewer need to keep in mind the eventual reader, and how the reader will see this work.
7. Context. Does the author demonstrate an understanding of the context for the study? Context encompasses (a) for historical work, a grounding in the particular time period; (b) for all research work, a sense of what else has already been written on the topic and how this particular project is different from what's already been done; and (c) for international studies, a sense of the culture and institutions that are part of the society examined.

BACK


JH HomeArticlesBook ReviewsElectronic Media ReviewsEditorsSubmissionsSubscriptionsReviewing