| name | commres-review-process |
| description | Use to understand how Communication Research (CR) evaluates a manuscript — double-anonymized review, editorial screening for quantitative/theory fit, external review, and the requirement that two independent positive reviews back a Revise or Accept decision. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors. |
Review Process (commres-review-process)
Knowing how CR screens and decides lets you pre-empt the failure modes before submitting. CR is
double-anonymized and is a quantitative, theory-testing journal, so it screens for both fit and
methodological rigor.
When to trigger
- Before submitting, to stress-test fit, rigor, and anonymization
- Deciding whether the contribution is quantitative and theory-testing enough for CR
- Interpreting a decision letter and setting expectations
- Understanding what reviewers are instructed to weigh
How CR review works
- Double-anonymized. Reviewers do not know the authors and authors do not know reviewers.
Anonymize the main document and supplemental materials; write self-citations in the third
person (see
commres-submission).
- Editorial screening first. Manuscripts that are off-scope (qualitative/interpretive for a
quantitative venue), descriptive, atheoretical, or methodologically weak may be declined without
full review. CR screens for a tested communication mechanism, not a platform description.
- External review. Manuscripts that pass go to expert referees under the double-anonymized model.
- Two independent reviews to advance. CR requires two independent reviews to back a Revise
or Accept decision (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准) — a single enthusiastic reviewer is not enough, so
the paper must satisfy more than one expert at once.
- Decision categories: typically reject, revise and resubmit (major or minor), or
accept — the final call is the editor's, weighing the reviews.
Open practices in review
- A data-availability statement is expected; preregistration (if any) should be noted in the
cover letter; open-materials/data claims must be deposited to be credited (see
commres-transparency-and-data).
Shape the paper to pass
- Make the tested mechanism explicit (avoids the "descriptive / atheoretical" screen-out).
- Defend measurement validity and identification up front — CR reviewers probe both.
- Engage the relevant empirical literatures, including across communication areas.
- Clear ethics/IRB and human-subjects compliance.
- Write to two expert reviewers at once: anticipate the strongest objection of each and answer it
in the design.
Two gates, two failure modes (calibration anchor, hedged)
| Gate | Who decides | What kills a paper here | Pre-empt by |
|---|
| Editorial fit/rigor screen | handling editor / EIC | qualitative for the venue, descriptive, atheoretical, weak measurement | front-loading a tested mechanism + valid measures |
| External expert review | independent referees (≥2 to advance) | weak theory advance, shaky measurement, no mechanism, CMV/confound | answering each referee's strongest objection in the design |
The fit screen is fast; external review is slow and substantive. Referee count, decision wording, and
timeline are volatile — confirm against the journal's current submission guidelines (待核实).
Worked micro-example: reading a "major revisions" signal (illustrative)
A "major revisions" letter says "the framing effect is plausible but the mediation is not convincing."
This is an external-review objection (the tested mechanism), not a fit screen-out — the editor
already judged the topic and design CR-relevant. The path is a sharper mediation test (manipulate or
better-measure the mediator; report bootstrap CIs), not more covariates. Reading it as a call for
controls is the classic misread that loses a winnable R&R — and because CR needs two reviewers on
side, you must convince the skeptical second reviewer, not only the encouraging first.
Anti-patterns
- Submitting a qualitative or descriptive paper to a quantitative venue (fit screen-out)
- Ignoring measurement-validity or common-method-variance concerns reviewers will raise
- Expecting acceptance without revision — most accepted papers go through at least one R&R
- Satisfying one reviewer while ignoring the second (CR needs two on side to advance)
- Leaving identifiers in supplemental materials (breaks double-anonymization)
Review-risk pass for Communication Research
Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the communication process,
the measured constructs, the study design, and the inferential claim; then judge whether the
manuscript answers CR's real reader: a quantitatively trained communication scientist who weighs
theory, measurement validity, identification, and effect interpretation.
- Do the pass: Turn probable reviewer objections into a ledger with response evidence, manuscript
location, and which of the two reviewers each must convince.
- Return a ledger: give
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows so the next agent
edits rather than rediscovers the issue.
- Sibling guard: Journal of Communication (all-paradigm), Human Communication Research
(interpersonal), New Media & Society (digital). If a sibling owns the contribution, re-route
before polishing format.
- Stop condition: do not give submission-ready advice until
resources/official-source-map.md
has been checked and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.
Output format
【Fit check】quantitative, theory-testing? any red flags?
【Mechanism】tested mechanism explicit enough to clear the screen? [Y/N]
【Measurement】validity + CMV defended? [Y/N]
【Anonymization】main doc + supplements clean? [Y/N]
【Two-reviewer test】would two independent experts back R&R? [Y/N]
【Realistic outcome】reject / R&R (major/minor) / (rare) accept
【Next】commres-submission (or commres-rebuttal if decided)
Supplementary resources
