|
Abstract
|
The short reports published in Communication Research Reports (CRR) serve a variety of important functions in communication science. Among other things, they serve as the "nuts and bolts" of communication research (Bowman, Citation2016), offer insights across a range of areas from basic research conducted by graduate students as well as tenured professors (Weber, Citation2019), and help to advance how we conduct and draw conclusions from quantitative research. As my predecessors have covered the first two points, allow me to discuss the last one in a bit more detail, including how I view CRR's role as the incoming editor.
At a basic level, empirical reports that adequately document their conceptual rationale, methods, and findings facilitate reproducibility, theory building, and knowledge accumulation. What exactly does "adequately" mean? In my view,Footnote1 adequately documenting the conceptual rationale means providing explicit conceptual definitions for central constructs, discussing the theoretical framework and its core assumptions that are relevant to the study, and walking through how those assumptions lead logically to falsifiable predictions involving the central constructs. Adequately documenting the methods means providing the expected information about the sample, procedures, and measurement approach--as well as arguments supporting the validity of the measures and, if applicable, the experimental design. Adequately documenting the findings means providing the expected information about the statistical analyses, including why an analysis was used and its result--as well as effect size estimates with confidence intervals. I believe that most researchers engaged in quantitative communication science would agree in principle, if not in practice, and CRR's format encourages researchers to prioritize these pieces of information.
Additionally, short reports offer an important avenue for enhancing the validity of our methods and statistical conclusions. In my view,Footnote2 CRR is one of the best outlets in our field for the publication of null results, replication attempts, methods pieces, and considerations about statistical analysis. Papers reporting null results and replication attempts help us to better evaluate the durability of our field's findings, better estimate effects through meta-analysis, and better understand boundary conditions for our theoretical assumptions; papers seeking to enhance our methods and analyses help to improve our research practices and, as a result, our ability to draw credible conclusions. In other words, I strongly encourage researchers to submit these specific types of papers during my tenure as editor at CRR. I will also continue my predecessors' focus on open science practices, in general, and registered and preregistered reports, in particular. I am hopeful that researchers, reviewers, and readers will continue to contribute and consume these valuable reports over the next few volumes.
Language: en |