The research report format has always served a very significant role in the advancement of Communication as a science. As the previous editor of Communication Research Reports (CRR), Nick Bowman pointed out, the research report has served as the “nuts and bolts” of Communication inquiry (Bowman, Citation2016). As such, it has always been a firm belief of anyone associated with the Eastern Communication Association that CRR is an important outlet for the survival and continued growth of our field. Unlike some of the other contextualized or full-length manuscript journals, the research report that is presented in CRR is representative of the field’s pursuit of basic research at its best. As a result of its short report format, CRR is intended to be a journal that is a more accessible publication outlet for researchers at every stage of their career. My own research record is evidence of this as my very first publication as a graduate student (Weber & Patterson, Citation1996) and my most recent submission have both been to CRR.
Additionally, CRR encourages research from different areas of the discipline and is not a journal that is contextually bound. The most recent on-line edition of the journal, Volume 36(2) includes scientific investigations into media effects, family communication, persuasion, health communication, new media/social media, and strict methodological inquires looking at new/different manners of research. As a journal, it is a true “generalists” outlet, specializing in basic research without excluding more applied forms of inquiry.
Moreover, CRR is intended to be a methodologically inclusive outlet while still holding to its core principles of highlighting social scientific quantitative inquiry, which can be most broadly defined as the investigation of human behavior by empirically testing research questions and hypotheses while adhering to the scientific method. Again, the most recent on-line edition of the journal includes a variety of methodological approaches including survey, experiment, and available data research.
In keeping with the recent traditions of CRR, we will continue to view manuscript submissions in one of two categories. The first is the Research Report category and the second is the Research Brief. Research Reports are manuscripts that are no longer than 3500 words while Research Briefs will have an even more concise 2000-word limit.
Additionally, CRR is a proud supporter of the Open Science Badge program. The Center for Open Science offers badges as incentives for researchers to share data, materials, or to preregister their study design, and serve as a signal to the reader that the content of the study has been made available in perpetuity (for more information, see https://cos.io/our-services/open-science-badges/). There are three badges that can be assigned to any individual manuscript: An Open Data badge is earned for making data associated with a given manuscript available in order to reproduce the reported results. An Open Materials badge is earned by making publicly available the components of the research methodology needed to reproduce the reported procedure and analysis. The Preregistered badge is earned for having a study’s design and data analysis plan reviewed and pre-registered prior to final submission of the study’s results. Authors are not required to submit manuscripts based on open science practices, but doing so is strongly encouraged, and CRR has outlined the many ways that submitting authors can engage in these practices (Bowman & Keene, Citation2018).
Finally, CRR’s importance within the field of Communication remains significant. Griffin, Bolkan, Holmgrem, and Tutzauer (Citation2016) found that CRR was the third most central journal in the Communication field. This lofty position is at least partially due to the efforts of the journals previous editors and Taylor and Francis however, the credit really belongs to the researchers that continue to read, subscribe, and submit to this journal. It is my hope that I can carry on the great traditions of the editors that have preceded me and enable the further expansion of this journal as well as the field of social scientific communication research.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
References
- Bowman, N. D. (2016). Research reports as the “nuts and bolts” of communication research. Communication Research Reports, 33(2), 87. doi:10.1080/08824096.2016.1174536
- Bowman, N. D., & Keene, J. R. (2018). A layered framework for considering open science practices. Communication Research Reports, 35(4), 363–372. doi:10.1080/08824096.2018.1513273
- Griffin, D. J., Bolkan, S., Holmgrem, J., & Tutzauer, F. (2016). Central journals and authors in communication using a publication network. Scientometrics, 106(1), 91–104. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1774-4
- Weber, K., & Patterson, B. R. (1996). Construction and validation of a communication based emotional support scale. Communication Research Reports, 13(1), 68–76. doi:10.1080/08824099609362072