All articles submitted to PRism (provided they fit within the broad topic area of communication and public relations, and unless specifically designated by the author for the commentary section), are submitted to members of the international refereeing board for independent blind refereeing.  This is slightly unusual, because most journal editors exercise an initial quality screening process before selecting articles for refereeing.  However, PRism’s primary goal is to encourage new writers by providing experience of refereeing and publishing requirements and detailed and constructive feedback.  To us, therefore, the process of refereeing is considered to be just as important as the outcome, and all authors whose work relates to PRism's disciplinary areas are offered the opportunity to be refereed.  (For more information on the kinds of work we publish, please see our submission guidelines.)  We are very grateful to our dedicated Editorial Board members for providing such an important service to the communication research community.

It is intended that authors should see the refereeing process as a way of gaining feedback from a broader perspective than may be possible within their own institutions, and thus use the opportunity to develop the overall quality of their work, rather than see a refereed publication as the only 'successful' goal.  The PRism editorial board members generously provide this high level of constructive feedback as a collegial service, and are not paid for their efforts.  This means that occasionally refereeing takes a little longer than planned (because we have a high expectation of our referees in terms of quality of feedback we need to be flexible about timeframes on occasion) but generally we aim to have refereeing take no more than 10 to 12 weeks from submission.

How it works.

If an article is deemed by both referees to be acceptable for the refereed section with minor changes, it is then revised by the author, edited, and included in the refereed section. 

If an article is deemed acceptable but with major changes suggested by one or both referees, it is then revised by the author and returned for further assessment to the one or more referees who requested a second review.  At this stage referees can still choose to reject the article if they feel that the desired changes have not been made.  Authors receive only one opportunity for revision in each refereeing round, however this does not preclude them from reworking an article and resubmitting for a future issue.

If an article is deemed by both referees to have some promise or interest but to need significantly more development, it is usually suggested to the author that they consider cutting it down to a shorter word count and reworking it as a commentary style article in order to gain wider exposure and feedback on work in progress.  (Other articles are sent specifically for commentary publication, however, so readers should not assume that commentary articles have been 'rejected' as that is often not the case.) 

If there is a split decision, i.e. one acceptance and one rejection, the author has the option to either withdraw the article and revise it before further reviewing, or request that the article be sent in its current form to a third referee for a casting vote.  In these instances the editor consults with authors and referees so that the author can be guided as to which is likely to be the most productive choice, however the final decision rests with authors. At all stages refereeing remains anonymous.

The Refereed Section:

The refereed section contains only articles that have been approved by two independent referees as suitable for publication as a scholarly article of international standard.  Less than 30% of assessed manuscripts are accepted for this section.

The Commentary Section:

This section contains a much wider range of work, from interesting student essays on under-theorised topics that may offer potential for future research, to ‘water-testing’ pieces by senior researchers who want to flag research in progress to help them locate other projects and researchers with common interests around the globe.  There’s also scope in the commentary section for practical pieces by industry writers who want to critique the academic perspective or offer how-to advice.  There are no ‘rules’ for this section.  It could include polemical opinion pieces about industry issues or controversies designed to stimulate discussion and generate feedback via the PRaxis discussion facilities; overviews of research projects that are in the early stages and would benefit from peer feedback to refine ideas or methods; or short responses to earlier work published on the site.  Commentary articles are edited to ensure a high standard of readability, however ultimate responsibility for their quality rests entirely with authors, as these pieces have not been approved by PRism’s editorial board.

The ViewPoints Section

This section is for your short, pithy 'rants' about issues relating to communication that concern you and that you feel need and deserve a public airing.  Please keep your ViewPoints submissions under 1000 words.