Why Become a Reviewer?
Reviewing a proposal to the National Communication Association annual convention can be beneficial for several reasons.
- Contribute to the advancement of communication scholarship by evaluating cutting-edge research.
- Engage with the latest trends and developments in the field of communication.
- Expand your professional network by connecting with scholars and experts from around the world.
- Enhance your own research and critical evaluation skills.
What Does Reviewing Involve?
As a reviewer, you will have the opportunity to evaluate submissions in your areas of expertise. This may include research papers, panel proposals, interactive sessions, and more. Your feedback will help authors improve their work and contribute to the overall success of the convention.
How to Get Involved:
If you are interested in becoming a reviewer for the NCA Annual Convention, please fill out the reviewer application form by March 31. We welcome reviewers from diverse backgrounds and areas of expertise to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive review process. Unit Planners are responsible for accepting and assigning reviewers based on their areas of expertise.
Important Dates
Tips for Reviewers
As you prepare to complete your reviews, here are six tips to think about when reviewing conference proposals.
#1: Start with the positive! Emphasize the proposal’s contributions.
- Try: This is a timely topic and the author made a compelling case for why this study is needed.
- Avoid: Here’s what’s wrong with this proposal: Everything.
#2: Evaluate what they did, not what you would do.
- Try: I’m not as familiar with this methodology, but the author(s) explained it well and it seems appropriate for their purpose.
- Avoid: This study examines the experiences of women studying abroad, but I think it would have been more interesting to talk to the study abroad advisors.
#3: Avoid harsh language—if you wouldn’t say it to a colleague face-to-face, don’t write it either.
- Try: I like where this is going and would suggest that the author(s) add more explanation about their methods and consider including more specific implications for practice since the results are so compelling.
- Avoid: This has absolutely no value or contribution whatsoever. The end.
#4: Be constructive — if there’s an area for improvement within the proposal, try to suggest how the author can address it.
- Try: I wasn’t sure how the “satisfaction” section of the literature review was connected to the study, so you might consider removing that part or include a few more sentences to provide that connection.
- Avoid: I didn’t really enjoy the literature review. It was not my favorite.
#5: Even though NCA Annual Conventions usually have focus areas, do not disqualify a proposal simply based on whether it reflects the theme.
- Try: Although you did not draw a parallel to one of the stated focus areas, I appreciated how you showed the relevance of this topic to the field.
- Avoid: This presentation does not connect to any of the themes stated.
#6: Do not disqualify a proposal based on its methodology, especially based on your conventional understanding of its purpose.
- Try: Based on the aims of your research method, this information seems valid. Have you considered ways to broaden or support these findings further with additional resources or other research?
- Avoid: How are the results of a study with five folks representative or generalizable?
Questions or Concerns?
Contact your unit planner for questions regarding your acceptance and assignments.
Contact convention@natcom.org if you have problems submitting the reviewer form or with the reviewer portal.