廣播電視學(xué)專業(yè)主文獻(xiàn)-24.the seven deadly sins of communication

JournalofCommunicationISSN0021ORIGINALARTICLETheSevenDeadlySinsofCommunicationW.Russellan1,RoeiDavidson2,Sung-HeeJoo1,YongJinPark1,&AnnE.Williams31DepartmentofCommunicationStudies,UniversityofMichigan,AnnArbor,MI2DepartmentofCommunication,UniversityofHaifa,Haifa31905,3DepartmentofCommunication, iaStateUniversity,Atlanta,GA yzedanonymizedcopiesofthecompletereviewercommentsfor120recentsubmissionstotheJournalofCommunicationandattemptedtoidentifythescholarly‘‘sins’’and‘‘virtues’’mostfrequentlymentionedbythereviewersandmostcloselyassociatedwiththedecisiontopublishthesubmission.Weassessedlevelsofinterrevieweragreementandpatternsofevaluationindifferentsubfieldsofcommunicationscholarship.Anexplicitconnectiontoaclearlyidentifiedtheoreticalcorpusandnovelfindingsorsprovedtobethemostimportantpredictorsofpublication.Wediscusstheramificationsofthesefindingsforthecurrentstateofcommunicationresearch.:10.1111/j.1460Oneparticularlyrevealingjunctureintheconductanddiffusionofresearchonhumancommunicationisthepeerreviewexercise—thegatekeeperprocessthatisdesignedtodeterminethescholarlyandscientificmeritofinquiryinthefield.Peerreviewiscentraltotheallocationofgrantsandawards,thetenureprocess,and,ofcourse,acceptanceforpublication.Peersturnouttobearathercriticallot.TheJournalofCommunication,forexample,acceptsonlyabout16%ofarticlessubmit-ted.High-qualityresearchisnoteasilyachieved,andevencommunication’smostdistinguishedandadmiredscholarswillattesttotheir alexperienceofsigni-ficantcriticismandrejection.Intheinterestofprobinghowthefieldofcommunicationdefinesquality,weselectedonejournal,theJournalofCommunication,andwithterouscooper-ationofitseditorsandstaffandtheapprovaloftheInternationalCommunicationAssociation’soversightpublicationcommittee,weobtainedcarefullyanonymizedcopiesof120recentsetsofpeerreviewcomments.Ourgoalwastodiscernwhichsinsandwhichvirtuesweremostfrequentlyidentifiedandwhichweremostcloselyassociatedwiththe mendationforpublication.WebaseourarticletitleonthenotionofthesevendeadlysinsratherthanthesevencardinalvirtuesbecauseCorrespondingauthor:W.Russellan;:r JournalofCommunication58(2008)220237a2008InternationalCommunicationW. anet SevenDeadlySinsofCommunicationthesinfulvariantismuchbetterknownandiconic,but,ofcourse,ourprimarymotivationistounderstandwhatleadsreviewerstoidentifyresearchasimportantandsignificantratherthancompilesomesortoflistofmiscuesorfailures.Sinfulnessturnsouttobeadominanttheme,however,asnegativeremarksoutnumberedpositiveonesinourysisby9to1.Theresearchteaminitiallydraftedalistofthesinsandcorrespondingvirtuesexpectedtodefinehigh-qualitycommunicationresearchandthentoexplorewhethersuchalistadequaycapturedthecontentofthereviewsets.Theexercisewasinstructivebutperhapsna¨?ve.Oursubsequentreadingofthesurprisinglyexten-siveresearchliteratureonthedynamicsofpeerreviewspanningabroadrangeofbecomparabletoreinventingthewheel.Thekeycriteriaofscholarlymeritarerelativelywelldevelopedintheliteratureand,conveniently,thereappeartobeaboutsevenclustersofcriteria.ThepeerreviewThisinterdisciplinaryliteratureisrobust,diverse,andratherlarge.Oneysttrackeddown643recentacademicprsonthepeerreviewprocess,101ofwhichincludedempiricalevidence(Armstrong,1997).Thereareextensivestudiesofics,educationalresearch,medicalresearch,andthephysicalsciencesbut,unfortu-nay,veryfewincommunication.Amongthefewcommunication-orientedstudies,thereisatendencytofocusonbibliometricdataandpatternsofcitationratherthanevaluationofscholarship(e.g.,Beniger,1990;Bunz,2005;Lin&Kaid,2000;Rice,Bman,&Reeves,1988).BryantandMiron(2004)isanotableexception.Fromthebroaderliteratureofthepeerreviewprocess,twoempiricalgeneral-izationsstandout:(a)thecriteriaofevaluationarequitesimilaracrossacademicdisciplinesand(b)thejournalacceptanceratesarenot.Inthephysicalsciences,mostjournalsacceptabout80%ofmanuscriptssubmitted,whereasinthesocialsciences,about80%arerejected.ThiswasakeyfindingoftheunfailinglycitedandseminalstudyinthisliteraturepublishedbysociologistsZuckermanandMerton(1971).Initially,researchersconcludedthatthiswasprimarilyafunctionofthefactthatsuchfieldsaschemistryandphysicshavewell-developedandagreed-uponparadigmsofappropriatetopicsandmethodsofysisthatthepreparadigmaticandquasi-paradigmaticsocialandhumanistictraditionslack(Braxton&Hargens,1996).Thisconclusionresonatedwithourmotivatinginterestinexploringthepossiblerootsofacommonparadigmanddefiningcoreofcriticalquestionsincommunication.Butasresearchersprobedfurther,theydiscoveredthat,surprisingly,althoughcriteriaofqualitywasremarkablylowregardlessoflevelofparadigmdevelopment1(Bakanic,McPhail,&Simon,1987;Cicchetti,1991;Cole,Rubin,&Cole,1977;Hargens,1988;Scott,1970;Wolff,1970).TheaverageinterrevieweragreementonqualityandJournalofCommunication58(2008)220237a2008InternationalCommunication publishabilityorworthinessforfundingisacorrelationcoefficientofabout.30orroughly10%ofthevarianceinevaluationexplainedbycommonlyagreed-uponcriteriaofquality(Cole&Cole,1981;Hackett&Chubin,2003).Theclassicifsomewhatcontroversialdemonstrationofreviewerdivergencewasastudythattook12recentlyacceptedpsychologyprsandchangedtheauthors’namesandinsti-tutionalaffiliationsandresubmittedthemtothesamejournals.Threewererecog-nizedasresubmissionsandrejected,butoftheremainingninethatweresentoutforreview,eightwererejectedasunworthyofpublication(Peters&Ceci,1982).Oneeditoradmitted:‘‘a(chǎn)llwhoroutinelysubmitarticlesforpublicationrealizetheMonteCarlonatureofthereviewprocess’’(Campanario,1998,p.191).Indeed,inonestudy,69%ofrejectedprswerefoundtobepublishedelsewhere,sometimesinmoreprestigiousjournals(Chew,1991).Suchresultsledtoadebateintheliteratureaboutwhetherrevieweragreementisactuallyaworthygoal.Editors,itisargued,solicitdiversereviewersand evaluationsthatarecomplementaryratherthanreplicative(Harnard,1979).Diver-sityfosterscreativityandservesasacounterpointtoanotherwiseconservativeprocessthatmaystifleinnovation(Armstrong,1997).Thesevensinsroceededtotrytoidentifythemostfundamentalandcommonlyusedcriteriaofevaluationevidentinthepeerreviewliterature.Terminologiesvary,buttheunder-lyingcriteriaweresurprisinglyconsistentacrossstudies.Arepresentativesampleofevaluativecriteria(includingsomecriterialiststhathavebeenroutinizedaschecklistformsinseveraljournalevaluationprocedures)aresummarizedinTable1.Thestudiesareidentifiedbyprincipalauthorsacrossthetopbannerofthetable,andtheseventermsweultimayusedtoidentifyoursevensinsandcorrespondingvirtuesarelistedontheverticalaxiswithanadditionaleighth‘‘miscellaneous’’category.Importance,thecriterion,appearedinsomeforminvirtuallyallevaluativetypologiesandranksamongthemostfrequentlyutilizedinevaluations.Butitmayalsobeamongtheleastprecise.Someusedthetermtoidentifytheimportanceoftheunderlyingtopicaddressed,somethenovelcontributionofthereportedresearchtoagiventopic,whichweidentified(asdidothers)underaseparateheadingoforiginality.2Otherystsappearedtoequateimportancewithperceivedreaderinterest.Inthereviewsetsyzedhere,thiscriterionattemptstocapturethereviewer’sjudgmentoft eralsignificanceofthebroadlydefinedtopicunder-takeninthearticle.Suchlanguageoftenappearsasalmostritualizedcommentaryusedbyeditorsandreviewerswhenrejectingaprtoacknowledgethatyes,theissueisimportant,buttheprdoesnotsayanythingsignificantaboutit.Theoreticalintegrationreferstothestrengthofconnectionbetweentheempiricaloryticresultsandtherecognizedelementsoftheory.Sometypologiessimplyusedtheterm‘‘theory’’toidentifythisclearlycentralcriterion;othersusedsuchphrasesasthe‘‘linkageofconceptstoexecution.’’Table1PrincipalCriteriaofScholarlyQualityinthePeerReviewBonjeanFiskeAng,Augir,&HullumSimonFoggEvaristoFabrigarStanleyLinkageofTopicWritingtoexecutionProfessionalQualityofDesign,Design,procedures,andtoneStatisticalysis,Coverageofofysis

to Contributionpractice,adherencetoscientificethics,length,reputation,futureresearch

persuasivepointalternativeviewSevenDeadlySinsofSevenDeadlySinsofCommunicationW.R.etJournalofCommunication58(2008)220237a2008InternationalCommunicationClaritywasourlabelforthevarietyoftermsusedtoevaluatethequalityofwritingoranizationoftheargument.Wedidnotusethiscategorytocodeminorgrammaticalsnafusandviolationsof tyleconventions.Methodology,ofcourse,wasincludedineverybody’stypology.Manyystschosetolistfourtosixseparatedimensionsofmethodologicalquality.Welumpedthemalltogether.Asaresult,thiscriterionincludedcommentsonthedesignandexecutionofthereportedresearchincludingsampling,samplesize,validity,reliabil-ity,inferenceofcausation,and,ofcourse,alonglistofstatisticalissues.Completenesscomesupfrequentlyinreviewercommentswhenreviewersnotethatsomethinghasbeenleftout.Mostfrequently,reviewersidentifygapsinthecitedliteraturesorinexplainingwhatwasdone.Othertimes,reviewersexplicitlyreferternativeexplanationwhichwasnotNormativeconnectionisacentrallyimportantcategoryforourysisbutonethatisinfrequentlycitedinthepeerreviewliterature(notetheemptyrowinTable1).Bynormativeconnection,werefertotheevaluationofthepotentialre-levanceofthereportedresearchtosocial,cultural,orpoliticalvaluesandmattersofreal-worldpublicconcern.Understandably,thisisanunstatednorminmanyofthephysicalsciencesandadelicatetopicforsomeofthesocialsciencesbutoftenamorefrequentlyarticulateddimensioninthehumanitieeofthehouse.ThestudiesbyLamontandcolleaguesonpeerevaluationinthehumanitiesnotefromtheirempir-icalstudiesthat‘‘moraljudgmentsplayacentralroleinpeerevaluation.’’(Lamont&Mallard,2005,p.11)Andtheynotethat‘‘theseassociationshavegoneentirelyunnoticedbytheliteratureonpeerreview’’(Guetzkow,Lamont,&Mallard,2004,p.203;seealsoLamont&Molnar,2002).ThiscriterionresonateswithGerbner’s(1983a)originalcallforresearchthatmakesadifferenceintheoriginalFermentintheFieldvolume,inLevyandGurevitch(1993),andtheInternationalCommuni-cationAssociation’srecentinitiativeonCommunicationinthePublicInterest.Originalityislistedlastbutcertainlynottoindicaesserimportanceasarion.Ascommonlyusedinthepeerreviewliterature,thiscategoryemphasizesthereviewers’identificationoforiginals,methods,andfindings(Guetzkowetal.,2004).TheidentificationofsinsandvirtuesintheJournalofreviewOurcentralresearchquestionsfocusedonthedistributionofpositiveandnegativereviewerevaluationsoneachofthesesevendimensions,thestructureofthosedimensions,andanypatternsofcorrelationbetweentheevaluationsandtheultimatemendationtopublishthesubmittedpr.Wewerealsocuriousaboutlevelsofinterrevieweragreementcomparedwithpublishedreportsfromotherfieldsalthoughwewerereluctanttosimplycharacterizeanyapparentagreementasevi-denceofsomesortofparadigmaticunity.Giventhecelebratedfragmentationofthefield,3wewantedtoexplorewhetherpatternsofevaluationweremarkedlydifferentamongsubspecialties,althoughourlimitedsamplesizeconstrainedourabilitytomaketoofineasetofdistinctions.Wehadhunchesonwhichdimensionswouldprovetobemostimportantforpredictingacceptancebutdidnothavegroundsformoreformalizedhypotheses,givenlimitedpriorresearch.Weassembledcopiesofallreviewcommentsforthe100mostrecentsubmissionsthathadcompletedthereviewprocessandhadbeenformallyacceptedorrejectedinthefallof2005.Namesofreviewersandrevieweeswerevigilantlyblackedout.Giventhatwewouldexpectonlyabout16acceptanceswithintheprimarysample,werequestedasupplementalsampleof20additionalacceptedsubmissionsbysimplygoingbackfurtherintimeandincludingonly‘‘a(chǎn)ccepts’’ignoringtheothers.Thiswouldhopefullyprovideuswithsufficientvariancetostudythelinkagesbetweenevaluativedimensionsandacceptanceforpublication.Duetosomeprocessingdifficulties,ourresultantusablesampleconsistedof117reviewsets—98fromtheoriginalsample(82rejects,16accepts)and19fromthesupplementalsample(19accepts.)Wejudged86ofthesestudiestobetativeincharacterand27tobequalitative(4notcategorized).Usingthejournal’scategorysystem,withinthissample,therewere22experimentalstudies,19contentyses,38surveys,23qualitativeresearch,2critical,3theoretical,and10other.Thisappearedtobeaprettytypicalcollectionofsubmissionsmatchingtothejournals’internalrecordswithperhapsafewmoresurveysandafewlessqualitativeandcriticalstudiesthanusual.Wedidnotrequestanddidnotreviewtheactualsubmittedarticles,justthereviewsets.Typically,twoormorereviewerswouldreadandprovidecommentsonthesubmissioninadditiontotheeditor.Amongacceptances,mostwererequiredtoreviseandresubmit.Thissampleof117reviewsetsincluded381uniquereviews,onaverage3.3reviewspersubmission.Theeditor’scommentswerealwaysidentifiedassuch,andincontext,itwaseasytomatchupareviewer’s andsecondreviewonarevise-and-resubmit.Butwedonotknowhowmanyuniquereviewerswereengagedinthisprocessbecause,ofcourse,theywereanonymous.Oursamplein shortestreviewsetwas368wordsandthelongest6,265Mosteditorsreturnatleastafewsubmissionsassimplyinappropriateforthejournalandthesesubmissionsarenotoutforreview.Allsubmissionsinthissamplewereinfactoutforreview,andinsuchcases,ofcourse,theeditorreliesheavilyonthejudgmentsofthereviewers,weighinginwithanindependentjudg-mentusuallyonlywhenoutsidereviewersdisagree.Wemadenodistinctionbetweentheand(asappropriateonreviseandresubmit)thesecondorthirdroundsofreviews.Theunitofysiswasthesetofaccumulatedreviewcommentaries,inmostcasestworeviewlettersandabriefcoverletterfromtheeditorthatonlyoccasionallyaddedsubstantiveandevaluativeeditor’scomments.Wheneditorcom-mentsweresubstantive,wecodedthemaswell.Ourcontentysisresultedin3,905codablecomments.Inaggregate,thereviewersidentified385virtuesand3,520sins.Oagethiscomesto3.3virtuesand30sinsperreviewset.Asnoted,reviewersarearathercriticallot.Butthenatureofthecriticismismostoftenconstructive.Codingthetypeoflanguageusedinthereviewprocessturnsouttobeextremelydifficult.Theprauthors,reviewers,andeditorareallfamiliarwiththesubmittedpr,unseenbyourcoders,anditisdifficultsometimestofullyunderstandthevariousallusions,abbreviations,andjargonbandiedaboutbywhatistypicallyahighlysophisticatedsetofspecialists.Reviewers,afterall,arehard-workingvolun-teers,soeditorsfinditintheirinteresttoroutinelytolerateatremendousdiversityofinformalities,in-jokes,irrelevances,andasidesthatseemtoaccumulateintheprocess.Oursevendimensionsare,inthelanguageofthecontentysistrade, inferencesfromlatentmeaning.Thecodersinitiallycodedthesamerandomlychosenpracticereviewsetsindependentlyandtheninfourroundsofsuccessivetrainingmeetingscomparedcodesparagraphbyparagraphdiscussingcodingrulesandaddingdetailsandclarificationstothecodebook.Atofthecodingprocess,werandomlyassignedadozencodedreviewsetstoberedun-dantlycodedbyasecondcoderforthepurposesofcalculatingintercoderreliability.Acrosscountsforour14sinsandvirtues,theaverageintercodercorrelationwasanr.72.Thetotalnumberofcodedcommentscorrelatedr .84acrosscoderpairs.4Lombard,Snyder-Duch,andBracken(2002),however,warnagainstusingcor-relationstoassessintercoderagreementasperhapstooliberalameasure,sowecomputedLin’s(1989)ConcordanceCorrelationCoefficient(CCC)indexaswell.5Relativelyhighreliabilitywasfoundfortheoreticalintegration,clarity,andmethod-ology(.83,.84,and.83,respectively)—noneofthesereliabilitymeasuresincluded0intheirtwo-tailed95%confidenceinterval.Fairreliabilitywasfoundforimpor-tanceandcompleteness(.43and.48,respectively).Reliabilityfornormativeconnec-tionandoriginalitywastoodifficulttoassessbecauseoftheverylowfrequencywithwhichthese swereevidentinthereviewsets.Giventheprojectiveandnovelnatureofthevariablescodedinthisproject,thereliabilitylevelswerelessthanidealbutadequatetothetask.Thedifficultyofinferringthesedimensionsfromthewide-rangingcommentaries(inthis,intercoderagreementisnotjustamethodologicalcheckbutinitselfafindingofinterest)raisestheprospectthatvariousexplicitevaluativechecklistsmightfruitfullyformalizeandclarifythejournalevaluationWefoundinoursample,arelativelyhighlevelofinterrevieweragreementonthe mendationtoacceptorreject.Settingthesupplementalspecialsam-pleofacceptancesaside,weexaminedtheoriginalsampleofthelast98availablecompletedsubmissionstothejournalandfoundagreement(almostalwaystwoindependentreviewerswiththeconcurrenceoftheeditor)69.4%ofthetime.Ofthe98originalcases,57representedagreementtoreject,11agreementtoaccept,and30differencesofopinion,5ofwhichwereultimayaccepted(viatherevise-andresubmit-process).Doessuchapatternprovidesomeevidenceofaconcurrenceamongreviewersonwhatrepresentshigh-qualityscholarshipinthecommunicationfield?Itisprobablynotpossibletosayfromsuchacrudestatistic.Itwouldappeartoreflectahigherlevelofagreementthanonemightexpect,giventhewidelycitedinterreviewercorrelationonqualityratingsamongscientistsofr.3(Cole&Cole,1981;Hackett&Chubin,2003).JournalofCommunicationreviewersareaskedtomakeadichotomousdecisiononpublicationworthiness,andwithawell-knownacceptancerateof16%,onemightexpecttofindalargenumberofagreementstorejectbasedonpurechanceifnotevaluativeconvergence.Anothercomplicationisthequestionofwhenthe mendationtopublishismade,anditismadeforthesamereasons.Anothercomplexityisthesubtleprocessbywhichtheeditorselectsexpertspecialistsfromwhataresometimesarcanesubfieldstodotheevaluating.Wewilltakeacloserlookatsubstanceofthereviewercommentsbelow.Whicharethemostprevalentdeadlysinsandcardinalvirtuesinthecommuni-cationfield?TheresultsaccordingtoourJournalofCommunicationsampleareoutlinedinFigures1and2.Onthevirtueside(Figure1),wefindthatimportancedominates,towerinertheotherdimensionsinourhistogram.Thereporteddataherereflecttherawnumbersofcodedcommentsacrossourentiresampleof117reviewsets.Recallingthatmostoftheseprswererejected,afterall,thismaybeevidenceofasomewhatritualizedcourtesyreviewersandeditorsfollowwhichtakestheformofnotingthatthepr‘‘hasindeedselectedanimportanttopic,but’asthereviewersthenturntoalistofthepr’s ings.Weseethatpositiveobservationsontheoreticalintegration,clarity,andmethodologyarefrequentlynotedandcompleteness,normativeconnection,andoriginalitymuchlessso.Giventhesignificance,particularlyoforiginality,intextbooks,thejournal’sguidelines,andtheloreoftheacademy,weweresurprisedandconcernedbyitsapparentrarityasanotedvirtueinthereviewprocess.0

Figure1Totalpositivereviewercommentsby0

Methodology

Figure2TotalnegativereviewercommentsbyFigure2chartsnegativecommentsandreflectsapatternrathersimilartoFigure1ascodedontheimportancedimensionarerelativelyrare.Soitturnsoutthatonlyinthecaseoftheimportancedimensiondovirtuesappeartooutnumbersins.Whichsinsandvirtuesaremosthighlyassociatedwiththedecisiontopublishasubmission?Figures3and4reporttheaveragenumberofpositiveandnegativecommentsperreviewsetforeachofoursevendimensions.Onemightexpectthat mendationswouldbeassociatedwitharelativepredominanceofpositivecommentsandthatisindeedwhatwefindinFigure3.And,accordingly,10Figure3Averagedistributionofvirtuesinrejectedandaccepted0Figure4Averagedistributionofsinsinrejectedandacceptedonemightexpectapredominanceofnegativecommentsintherejectcolumn,presumablytojustifytoprospectiveauthorswhytheirsubmissionsdonotmeasureup.Buthere,asurprise.Wefindadramaticallylargernumberofnegativecomments ageforacceptedp rs,especiallyonthedimensionsofclarity,methodology,andcompleteness.Oncloserexamination,itturnsouttomakesenseintermsofthepsychologyofthehard-workingvolunteerscalledupontoprovidethereviews.Iftheoverallimportanceandtheoreticalintegrationofasubmissionisweak,thereviewerssimplydonotbothertospendalotoftimewithconstructivebutnegativecommentsonsuchthingsasclarifyinganargumentandstrengtheningthemethodologicalpresentation.Onprslikelytobepublished,reviewersmaygotogreaterlengthtoindicatehowtheauthorsmightbemorecompleteandclearintheirpresentation.Thisappearstobetheacademicjournalreviewequivalenttothehoped-forthickenvelopefromafavoredcollegetowhichonehasapplied—themorethereviewerssay,positiveandnegative,themoreinterestinthesubmittedpr.Soweexaminedthecross-tabulationofthetotalnumberofreviewerwordsandthelikelihoodofpublicationandranarudimentarylinearleastsquaresanddeterminedthatroughlyforeveryadditional1,000wordsofreviewercomments(includingallone’schanceofacceptanceincreasesapproximayNext,wegeneratedanoverallindexforeachofthesevendimensionsbytakingthenumberofvirtuesandsubtractingthenumberofsinsineachcase.Becauseoftheheavypredominanceofnegativecomments,indexscorestendedtobenegative,andthevarianceoftheindexisalsodominatedbythelargernumberofnegativecom-ments,butsuchanindexseemedtoustobethefairestrepresentationofwhatreviewerssayanddo.Wethenregressedthesevenindicesonthereviewermendationtoacceptortorejectthesubmission.Becausethedependentvariableisdichotomous,wecalculatedlogisticregressioncoefficientsasreportedinFigure5.WerepeatedtheexercisefortheultimatedecisiontopublishandreportedtheresultsinFigure6.Inbothcases,asexpected,thedimensionsoftheoreticalintegrationandorigi-nalityprovedtobethebestpredictorsofthereviewers’andeditors’ultimatedecisionthatasubmissionwasworthyofpublication.Sowehavefoundsomeevidenceofanintriguingpatterninthereviewprocessinvolvinganinteractionamongtheevalu-ativedimensions.Broadlyaddressinganimportanttopicisgoodbut,itwouldappear,everybodydoesthat.Themoredifficultchallengeisngsoinawaythatclearlyengagesaccumulatedtheoryandsayssomethingnewandoriginal.Gettingcriticizedbyreviewersonclarity,methods,andcompletenessgoeswiththeterritory,andsuchcriticismmaybetiedtoapositiveevaluationoftheoryandoriginality.Aquickexaminationofthebivariatecorrelationsofthenumberofpositiveandnegativecommentsonthesevendimensionsrevealedthat,yes,positiveevaluationsofimportanceandtheoreticalintegrationwerepositivelycorrelatedwiththenumberofnegativecommentsonclarityandmethodology.Thenextstageofourysisturnedouttobethemostdifficult.Giventhelimitsoftherawdataavailableandofourcodingprocess,wehavethusfarcometotheconclusionthattheoryisking.Withoutaclearconnectiontoanidentifiabletheo-reticalcorpusandprovidinganoriginalcontributiontothatcorpus,pristineproseormagnificentmethodsdonotprovidethekeytoscholarlyrecognition.Butthequestionremains—connectiontowhattheory?IfbytheoryeachsubspecialtyincommunicationabidesbyJensen’s(2000)paradoxicaldictum—‘‘youhaveyourtheoryandI’llhavemine’’(p.28)—thentheremaybegroundsforsomethinglessthanoptimismabouttheoreticalintegrationandanevolving,agreed-upon,10Figure5Logisticregressiononreviewer 10Figure6Logisticregressiononultimateacceptanceforstructuredrelationshipamongfoundationalissueswithinthefield.Soweask—whenreviewerssay‘‘theory,’’whatdotheymean?ofall,thereappearstobesomethingofadisjuncturebetweenwhatcom-municationtheoristsdefineasthecentraltheoreticaltraditionsofcommunicationscholarshipandwhatjournalarticleauthorswriteaboutoratleastthatisevidentlytrueintheJournalofCommunication.TheremaybeadifferentpatterninjournalsspecializingintheoreticalissuessuchasCommunicationTheoryorperhapsinothermorespecializedjournals.WecodedeachreviewsetusingStephenLittlejohn’swidelyusedtypologyofthecentraltheoreticaltraditionsofthefield(Littlejohn&Foss,2005andpreviouseditions).TheLittlejohntypologywasalsoacentralelementofCraig’s(1999)influential‘‘CommunicationTheoryasaField.’’AlthoughthetypologyhasevolvedabitinvariouseditionsoftheLittlejohntext,itremainedfocusedonsixfundamentalandphilosophicallygroundedtheoreticaltraditions.Althoughthesetraditionsmayreflecttherootsofcommunicationscholarshipandcompriseanentirelyappropriatebasisforintroducingstudentstothefield,theydonotappeartoaccuraycapturetherangeofwhtivecommunicationscholarsarecurrentlyngas87%ofthesubmissionsinoursamplewereconcentratedinonlytwoofthesixLittlejohncategories—thesociopsychological(49%)andsocio-cultural(38%)traditions.(Thesemiotic/rhetoricaltraditioncorrespondedto5%,phenomenologicalto1%,andcyberneticto0%.)matchedupthesubmissioncontentascritiquedinthereviewswithboththe20divi-sionsofInternationalCommunicationAssociation(ICA)andthe26theoreticaltradi-tionsincommunicationresearchidentifiedbyBryantandMiron(2004)butgivenoursamplesize,bothrepresentedanoverlyfine-grainedcategorizationwithtoofew evelcoursesyllabifromahalfdozenmajorcommunicationschoolsandofcourseworkthatwereprominentlyused.Thistypologycapturestheborderlinesinandmediaeffectsversusculturalemphases.Thefourtopicalclustersare(a)culturaltechnology)(17submissions),(c)politicalcommunicationandpublicopinion(38submissions),and(d)masscommunication(25submissions).Severa