Review of Commmunication Research (RCR) specializes in publishing LITERATURE REVIEWS and META-ANALYSES for the field of communication. We accept manuscripts and proposals in any area.

High Quality

RCR has an excellent Editorial Board, Associate Editors, and Editor, and invites the best scholars as ad-hoc reviewers.

You can be part of a set of excellent authors who have published with us (W. James Potter--three times--, Timothy Levine, James D. Ivory, Maxwell McCombs, Talia Stroud, James P. Dillard, Lijiang Shen, Kory Floyd, Scott W. Campbell, Robert Abelman, John Sherry, Daniel McDonald, Rajiv Rimal, Douglas McLeod--three times--, Anneke De Graaf, José Sanders, Hans Hoeken, Jake Harwood, and a long etcetera.)

The two review processes (double blind peer review and open peer review) assure the best standards of editorial quality.

High Visibility

The open-access publication and wide diffusion give high visibility to the articles we publish.

High Impact

The articles we publish are open access. Therefore, anybody in the world can download them. The articles we have published have been downloaded by scholars from the USA, China, Europe, but also from most countries around the globe. Name it, from A to Z. Albania? Yes; Algeria? Yes; Bahrain? Yes; Bangladesh? Yes; (...); Uganda? Yes; Uzbekistan? Yes; Venezuela? Yes; Zambia? Yes; Zimbabwe? Yes.

Scholars will reach your article. Our articles are listed in Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and other databases. 

The fact that articles are available online and citable as soon as it is accepted is an additional factor that helps to rise our articles' impact factor.

Here we offer you some statistics that can give you an idea of our citation performance:

1. RCR ranks in the top 1% (#104 of 8,420) of the journals in Social Sciences, according to the SNIP indicator by SCOPUS (https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/21100870684). SNIP "helps you make a direct comparison of sources in different subject fields." (https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14884/kw/snip/supporthub/scopus/related/1/)

2. RCR ranks Q1 in communication, according to the CitationScore by Scopus (top 10%).

4.2

2020CiteScore

 

90th percentile

Powered by  

3. RCR ranks in the top 6% according to the SJR statistic by Scimago, also reported in Scopus (SJR (2020)=3.2.

4. RCR articles have an average citation per item of 13.9 in Web of Science in June 2021 (RCR is included in Web of Science Core Collection).

5. Check our Google Scholar profile: Google Scholar

6. RCR has just 0.3% of self-citations in Web of Science.

Rapid Publication After Acceptance

Once an article has been accepted, it receives a DOI number and is published online in the next few days. RCR implements a continuous publication model. This means that articles are being published as each individual article completes production. The articles are assigned to the present or the following volume according to the time of the year when they are accepted. 

The production process is fast too.

Long-Term Availability

We assure the long-term permanence in open-access repositories (e.g., Internet Archive; Academia; Social Science Open Access Repository, SSOAR).

The articles have an assigned DOI number for a permanent location.

Authors and scholars are free to save the article in any repository they wish and to distribute the articles as they wish, as long as it is not for commercial use.

Open Access and Copyright Retention

RCR is committed to free accessibility of scientific production to any scholar or student in any country in the world.

Open Access means that anybody from any country in the world can download and read the articles. In this way, we are supporting a fair distribution of academic knowledge. Authors can distribute the articles as they wish, as long as there is no commercial benefit. RCR grants some databases to list the articles for a win-win relationship (e.g., Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest).

The authors keep the copyright.

Double-blind Review

RCR uses the traditional double-blind peer-review process. We invite two independent ad-hoc reviewers to review the manuscript. They are always specialists in the topic with a good publication record. We may invite members of the Editorial Board if the manuscript fits their areas of expertise. 

Production Charges

RCR needs to pay collaborators for their work in the publication process, webspace, technical maintenance, article production, doi registration, etc. Therefore, RCR asks the authors to pay for a production fee.  Even if you have department or research project funds and can pay, please, check if you are eligible for a discount (e.g., members of the Editorial board or ad-hoc reviewers get a discount). here

Active Article Promotion

Articles are actively promoted throughout the world by our editorial staff and social media.

Testimonials

Some sentences that authors and reviewers have written to our editor, Dr. Giorgio De Marchis. Nevertheless, the work of the editors would not be possible without the extremely talented work of the members of our editorial board, ad-hoc reviewers, and editorial staff. Thank you!

"You are one of the VERY best editors I have ever had the privilege to work with in my three decades of publishing! Thank you so much.” W. James Potter (University of California Santa Barbara, USA)

"Wow, I am humbled by your keen eye for errors and your clear explanations of grammar and mechanics. I agree with all of your comments."

“Thank you so much! You are one of the most dedicated editors I've ever worked with. It's my honor to contribute to RCR, and I am looking forward to seeing the piece out.” Jie Xu (Villanova University, USA)

“Wow, I honestly salute the way in which you engage with the authors! It’s a very respectful and motivating tone! The feedback is massive, but at the same time, it’s very helpful and you all really invested time in helping them to improve the manuscript.”

"Thank you! You are for sure one of the very best editors that I have ever worked with. You pushed us to make so many improvements in the manuscript and your suggestions helped us immensely!" Douglas M. McLeod (University of Wisconsin—Madison)

“I can not thank you enough for your insightful guidance, the manuscript would not be where it is at now without your invaluable advice,” and “Many thanks again to your invaluable guidance, for which I am immensely grateful.”

“I continue to be enormously impressed with you as an editor. You do it all well, even down to the smallest of line edits. Thank you so much for all the quality you added to our work.” W. James Potter (University of California Santa Barbara, USA)

“I'm impressed with how quickly your journal moves from acceptance to publication.”Kara Thieleman (Arizona State University, USA)

“In sum, this experience has led me to a basic conclusion: You are doing a great job here. You are taking the time to provide valuable and direct feedback to authors, and you are interpreting (and improving) rather than merely passing along reviewer comments. (…) Thank you for all of your work on the journal and for the discipline.”

“This is by far the nicest rejection, probably ever in the history of rejections (…) I am impressed by this journal and its efforts related to encouraging scholars to conceptually map and evaluate the state of literature. Thank you for your leadership. This sort of journal is necessary as the number of journals has proliferated. I will consider this journal following the completion of several other manuscripts I am planning (…) Thank you for your timely response so that I can move forward elsewhere with this piece.”

“Thank you so much for the excellent editorship of this manuscript and the journal. This was far and away the most positive experience I have had in the process of publication, and you deserve much commendation for your excellent work.” Stephen M. Yoshimura (University of Montana, USA)