Communication Theory ISSN 1050-3293

EDITORIAL

Writing for Communication Theory

Thomas Hanitzsch
University of Munich, Institute of Communication Studies and Media Research, Munich, Germany

doi:10.1111/comt.12004

Editing a leading journal such as Communication Theory is a joyful journey and

source of intellectual inspiration—but sometimes too, it makes me feel a certain
level of frustration. This often happens when I have to reject a manuscript, based
on consistent reviewer recommendations, when in fact it could make an interesting
contribution had the authors done a better job in making their case.
My sense is that there are generally three broad categories of journal submissions:
very good articles, good articles . . . and others. Very good articles are routinely
subjected to peer review and, provided they are favorably reviewed, they might
get published after one or more rounds of revision. Other submissions are of less
exceptional quality; they are either sorted out in the process of editorial screening,
or they fail to stand the test of peer review. Some authors choose not to address the
‘‘communication’’ in the journal’s title; others do not make a substantive contribution
to theory or are not sufficiently developed.
Yet I think there is a third category of submissions, somewhere between the
‘‘promising’’ and ‘‘not publishable’’ categories. These articles advance some really
interesting ideas, but the way the argument is presented and developed makes it
difficult to fully appreciate the article’s true contribution to the field. There can
a number of reasons for this: conceptual vagueness, a confusing argumentative
structure, stylistic problems, or poor language skills to name but a few.
Clearly, theory articles constitute a very special breed of academic prose, and
writing a theory article can be a pain in the neck. Language, for instance, has
much more importance for theory articles than it does for most empirical work.
The author of a theory article ultimately needs to convince the reader that his or
her theory intervention is a reasonable way to address a phenomenon, and that
the proposed theory makes a substantive contribution to the literature. The many
good ideas that often go unappreciated by reviewers bring into relief a key aspect of
the peer review process: An excellent idea alone does not necessarily make a good
article.
In this editorial, I will outline a few important points to consider for writ-
ing a theory essay. It is meant as a service to future authors, to provide editorial

Corresponding author: Thomas Hanitzsch; e-mail: hanitzsch@ifkw.lmu.de

Communication Theory 23 (2013) 1–9 © 2013 International Communication Association 1

Editorial T. Hanitzsch

guidance to potential authors even before they submit, in order to better ori-
ent them toward a successful submission to Communication Theory. It is not
my intention to repeat all the good advice and many useful recommendations
provided by numerous introductions to academic writing and rhetoric. Of these
I believe Alison Alexander and James Potter’s (2001) collection How to Publish
Your Communication Research to be a must-read for potential authors, especially
Judee Burgoon’s chapter on The Challenge of Writing the Theoretical Essay. Of
course, another good source of orientation is a look into recent issues of the
journal.
Before I start, a brief note of caution is in order. My recommendations are not
meant to impose undue limits on the range and diversity of theories, paradigms,
epistemologies and methodologies that all clearly have their place in Communication
Theory. The editorial scope of this journal as formulated by Robert T. Craig (1991),
the founding editor of this journal, more than 20 years later still remains to be the
major guiding framework: to publish the best work on topics of broad theoretical
interest from across the whole range of communication studies, epistemologies, and
methodological approaches, which make a significant contribution to Communication
Theory.
Yet within the boundaries of this general framework I think that we especially
need to promote innovative and truly original ways of theorizing, the writing of
which can be a risky business. As I argued in my first editorial for this journal,
originality of theoretical and conceptual thinking is the lifeblood of this journal, and
it may well be one of its unique selling propositions. We all know that routinized
editorial procedures based on peer review tend to favor conventional ways of thinking
over unconventional ideas, as these connect more easily with existing avenues of
research. Unfortunately, such academic streamlining can lead to a marginalization of
alternative ideas and, ultimately, to theoretical stagnation. Paradigm shifts, however,
sometimes need moments of ‘‘revolutionary science’’ to unlock periods of ‘‘normal
science,’’ as argued by Thomas Kuhn long ago in 1962.
In the following I will provide a detailed account of recommendations that
emerged from my experience as editor for this journal and which I gathered in
conversations with my fellow editors and distinguished members of the Editorial
Board. A summary of these recommendations is provided in the form of a ‘‘checklist’’
at the end of this editorial.

Making a case for the theory intervention

An effective theoretical essay makes a compelling case for the relevance of the theory
intervention early in its exposition. Readers—including editors and reviewers—need
to be convinced that the proposed theory endeavor is a worthwhile one, and that
reading the article is a sensible thing to do. The urge for and relevance of a theory
intervention should not be merely postulated but reasonably argued. It is always easy
to say that there is a need for more theorizing on the subject under scrutiny, but a

2 Communication Theory 23 (2013) 1–9 © 2013 International Communication Association

T. Hanitzsch Editorial

lack of theory is not a justification in itself. Authors need to explain why they think
that further theorizing is needed, and they need to tell the reader why they think it is
relevant.
In this context it is extremely important to be as explicit as possible about the
article’s objective and scope—and using the introduction to do so is certainly a good
idea. Authors need to stake out their intellectual territory, a process that Potter (2001,
p. 14) aptly describes as ‘‘setting the perimeter.’’ Many reviewers turn articles down
when they miss a clear statement of purpose, and when they are uncertain about what
the authors are actually trying to achieve. Furthermore, the manuscript’s title should
already reveal the goal of the article. It is therefore advisable to clearly state the article’s
purpose and objectives early on, in order to give the reader an immediate sense of
what she or he can expect to gain from reading the article. Such a statement of purpose
serves as a guide, or lens, through which the author helps readers see the theory
contribution, and it is an opportunity for the author to frame the argument. Equally
important is to set clear boundaries by disclaiming the—potentially relevant—areas
that will not be discussed in the manuscript. Such a qualification helps avoid unwanted
expectations that the article does not intend to address.

Addressing the communication problem

Theorizing is not just a purely academic exercise, nor does it have a value in itself.
Theories are tools to understand the world; they should be of some utility, at least
from some reasonable point of view. Articles submitted to this journal should explic-
itly address a clear communication problem because after all, Communication Theory
is a communication journal. This may sound trivial, but the more we think about it
the more we realize the broad applications of notions of ‘‘communication’’ in fairly
different academic disciplines. The concept of communication is frequently used in
mathematics, computer science, sociology, and other fields—with definitions and
meanings that often substantially differ from those used in the communication field.
Communication Theory is concerned with communication processes that involve
human beings. A submission focusing on theorizing general human behavior is only
interesting to this journal when it explicitly links to a communication problem.
Theories of human behavior in the context of family communication, for instance,
are perfectly suited to the scope of Communication Theory. The same is true for
many manuscripts focusing on human-computer interaction, but not for articles on
communication between computers. A sociological perspective on theorizing com-
munication is most welcome, but a manuscript discussing Niklas Luhmann’s notion of
‘‘communication,’’ which he conceptualized as smallest components of social systems,
is only relevant to this journal when it frames the issue as a communication problem.

Reviewing the literature

The role of the literature review is often greatly misunderstood. It is not the place to
demonstrate to the reader that authors have read everything that was ever written

Communication Theory 23 (2013) 1–9 © 2013 International Communication Association 3

Editorial T. Hanitzsch

on the phenomenon under scrutiny. A good literature review helps make a strong
case for the need of theory development (see above). It situates the proposed
theory intervention within established domains and traditions of theorizing. Many
authors fail to compellingly demonstrate how their work belongs to the discipline
of communication. As trivial as it may sound, for a submission to successfully pass
the editorial screening stage and ultimately move into peer review, it is essential to
engage the relevant literatures in the field of communication.
A well-crafted literature review does not just summarize related works one
after another; it reviews the literature in an analytic and critical manner. Ide-
ally, it synthesizes extant literatures into an analytic structure that is more than
the sum of its parts. It is a structure that helps the author identify meaningful
points of departure, and that ultimately leads into carefully formulated propositions.
That said, authors need to keep in mind that Communication Theory emphasizes
original work. While a solid literature review is undeniably essential for the suc-
cess of a manuscript, it should not become the focus of the article. This place
should be reserved for the author’s own original contribution to communication
theory.

Contributing to theory
Successful submissions to this journal make a clear, original, innovative, and
identifiable contribution to Communication Theory. Articles should make a rea-
sonable theory intervention and offer original insight for theorizing communication
phenomena. This contribution should be evident for the audience, and not the
outcome of readers’ personal detective work. Granted, any ostentatious praise of
one’s own theory contribution will almost inevitably have adverse consequences,
but undue modesty can be equally detrimental. Authors need to orient read-
ers; they should make explicit where exactly they see their contribution to the
literature.
Remember, editors and reviewers are particularly alert readers; they always ask
(and they are encouraged to do so): Is this really new? One of the most common
reasons for rejecting manuscripts is a lack of originality. Authors need to demonstrate
clearly how their theory proposal substantially contributes to theory building in the
communication field. If an existing theory is being developed, it should be taken in
new directions.
In most cases, theory proposals are made in a space that is already occupied by
a multitude of perspectives. It is always wise to develop a theory intervention in
dialogue with or in distinction to existing avenues of theorizing. Authors may ask
themselves: How is their theory proposal situated in relation to other approaches?
How do authors locate themselves vis-à-vis other positions in the debate? Establishing
a conversation between one’s own theory proposal and alternative—and often
competing—approaches may give the reader a true sense of the field. In this context,
authors should be mindful of other disciplinary conventions and preoccupations

4 Communication Theory 23 (2013) 1–9 © 2013 International Communication Association

T. Hanitzsch Editorial

that often represent different epistemologies in a field that is populated by multiple

intellectual traditions.

Building a compelling argument

Clearly, the theoretical essay is a very peculiar kind of academic prose, one that ought
to be rhetorically sound. Too many good ideas get buried in awkward or overly
tortuous writing. Too many authors get lost in unnecessarily complex and technical
jargon, with readers being unable to see the forest for the trees. The considerably
diverse readership of Communication Theory should be an important consideration
for authors, too. On the whole, good rhetorical skills are essential because there is
often very limited empirical evidence to carry the persuasive burden. And there is little
methodological critique reviewers can rely on to distinguish between submissions. As
a consequence, the decision to accept or reject an article often relies almost exclusively
on the persuasive power of the argument.
At the heart of a successful submission to Communication Theory therefore is a
powerful argument that ‘‘sells’’ the theory proposal to the reader. Authors should see
their articles as a conversation with the reader, in the course of which they ultimately
need to convince him or her that their theory intervention is a reasonable way to go
about the communication problem under scrutiny. Needless to say, authors should
argue their case, and avoid any apodictic style.
Furthermore, the evolution of the argument needs to be evident; the reader should
see that the author is going from one point to another and that each progression
is justified. Assumptions need to be clearly identified; and authors should carefully
connect the dots explicitly in the article—and not leave this task to the reader. Ideally,
the argument is presented in a way that captures the readers’ imagination. Readers
want to be engaged, and fascinated. I strongly suspect that the fascination that comes
with wonderful metaphors such as ‘‘gatekeeping’’ and ‘‘spiral of silence’’ have greatly
contributed to the success of these theories.
However, critical and experienced readers—including editors and
reviewers—have a habitual inclination to keep an eye on the intellectual
substance even behind the most brilliant rhetoric. Still, the key is to make a coherent
argument that supports a thesis that contributes to the field in some way, and no
amount of ‘‘selling’’ will overcome the lack of it.
A compelling argument is probably best presented in a rather parsimonious
manner. Verbiage and overabundance of words are not helpful. Material that does
not contribute to the flow of the argument can be safely omitted. Sometimes
it can help to include a model or other graphic illustration, especially when these
elements enable the author to condense complex ideas into easy-to-grasp, memorable
depictions of ideas. Practical examples can also help to explain how a concept or
theory proposal works.
To be sure, the exceptional importance of rhetorical skills for the theoretical essay
puts authors from outside the Anglophone context at a clear disadvantage. I am not

Communication Theory 23 (2013) 1–9 © 2013 International Communication Association 5

Editorial T. Hanitzsch

a native speaker of English myself, so I am well aware of the potentially deterrent

nature of language barriers and the extra effort that usually goes into writing a
manuscript in a foreign language. Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to this
problem. Editors and reviewers can certainly grant more stylistic latitude to authors
who are obviously not from the English-speaking world. But they can do so only
to the extent that manuscripts remain accessible and comprehensible. Many times
reviewers get frustrated when they crawl through the first pages of a manuscript,
struggling to understand what the author is trying to say. This may most likely deter
them from reading the article thoroughly—and the result is a plain rejection. Having
the manuscript proofread by a native speaker of English would solve the problem in
many of these cases.

Using empirical evidence

An often asked question is whether the journal does also consider empirical work.
The short answer is yes. Communication Theory does publish empirical articles,
and some of the best articles published in the past have managed to establish
a convincing link and generate an insightful conversation between theory and
evidence.
There are several ways of incorporating empirical evidence into a theory article:
by using it to develop or modify a theory, to support a theory, or to illustrate a
theory. Either way, the empirical study should be considered as a supportive element
of a theory proposal, hence the primary contribution should be made to theory. If
empirical evidence is used to develop a theory intervention, which is common in
many studies within the tradition of qualitative work and grounded theory, authors
should look beyond the case and try to show the larger picture. If empirical work is
used as a first test of the proposed theory, authors should try to keep the description
of methodological procedures brief and concise; they should not forget to revisit their
theory proposal in their conclusions. And if empirical results serve to illustrate or
exemplify a theory, examples should be chosen so that the reader gets a clear sense of
what the theory is adding and how the theory provides a new perspective or insight.

Answering the ‘‘So what?’’ question

Writing conclusions can become a challenge when authors feel that they have shot
their wad in the previous sections already. Good articles make perfect use of the
concluding section by showing the larger implications and by demonstrating the rel-
evance of their theory proposal once again. Conclusions should be pitched primarily
at the level of theory innovation, and less on the level of problematizing current
developments. Also, some of the best theory articles end with a ‘‘bang’’—something
that audiences can ‘‘take home’’ from reading the article. Authors are therefore
encouraged to address the ‘‘So what?’’ question: Why should the reader care about
the theory intervention being made? What more can we see and understand with

6 Communication Theory 23 (2013) 1–9 © 2013 International Communication Association

T. Hanitzsch Editorial

this theory, and why? Conversely, what would have been unseen or hidden with-
out the theory? Does it deepen our understanding of key communication issues,
so that we can better address pressing contemporary concerns relevant to the
field?
Equally important are the limitations of a theory proposal. Every theory has its
blind spots. The questions consequently are: What can we not see with the new theory
at hand? What do we risk missing? Which other perspectives could help compensate
for this weakness? These are the questions editors and reviewers typically have in
mind when reading a theory article. It is wise to address these issues well before any
ambiguity that may arise from not discussing these points gets too much weight in
the decision letter.
In addition to the points already mentioned, many good theory articles show
evidence of relevance by offering compelling examples of how a theoretical innovation
offers a new insight into communication in context. Authors may also wish to
conclude their articles with some suggestions concerning productive applications of
the theory in question to comparable cases, and, even better, to significantly different
objects.

To be sure, the editors of Communication Theory do not expect each single

submission to achieve everything that is mentioned in this editorial. Considering the
vast range of areas, theories, epistemologies, and methodologies that characterize our
field, we recognize that not all scholarly approaches and topics will necessarily yield
themselves to all features of the above points. In particular, newer areas of work,
including approaches that are very interdisciplinary or transnational, may not always
be able to fully address all the items on the ‘‘checklist’’ (see below) in the way we
want to see them.
Furthermore, as editors of an international journal we have to always remind
ourselves that scholarly writing formats sometimes differ greatly between academic
communities—around the world and across disciplinary boundaries. Academic
standards and rhetorical styles entertained in the English-speaking world may
not—or not fully—apply to other research traditions. Especially in the area of
theorizing, this diversity is not necessarily a weakness but an advantage, as it often
gives a breath of fresh air to intellectual imagination. This editorial should therefore
not be read as an attempt to streamline submissions towards the Anglo-Saxon model
of writing a theory essay, but readers will notice that most of the recommendations
given above broadly apply to most academic cultures.
As journal editors we depend heavily on the quality of work submitted by our
authors. During the first year of my tenure for Communication Theory, I have received
a great number of outstanding manuscripts, and it has always been a privilege and
a great pleasure to read them, and see many of them evolve into published articles.
But the standards of Communication Theory are high. Since we cannot accept more
than 10% of all incoming articles, we need to treat our submissions in a very selective
manner. Only the best of the best will eventually make their way to publication. The

Communication Theory 23 (2013) 1–9 © 2013 International Communication Association 7

Editorial T. Hanitzsch

difference is: Editors read them all, while our readership sees only the small slice that
gets published.
I therefore hope that this editorial may help future authors to better tailor their
submissions to the expectations of readers, as well as the reviewers and editors of this
journal, which will ultimately improve the quality of submissions to Communication
Theory.

Writing for Communication Theory: a checklist

1. Is the need for a theory intervention justified?
2. Does the article address a communication problem?
3. Are objectives and limits clearly stated?
4. Does the article engage the relevant communication literatures?
5. Does the literature review identify meaningful points of departure?
6. Are the ideas advanced in the article actually new?
7. Does the article clearly spell out its own original theory contribution?
8. Are relevant terms and concepts explained?
9. Does the article have a clear line of argument?
10. Does the article advance its ideas vis-à-vis other relevant positions?
11. Can any material that does not contribute to the flow of the argument be
eliminated?
12. Does the article use an accessible and comprehensible language?
13. If empirical work is used, does the article establish a clear link between theory
and evidence?
14. Does the article discuss the larger implications of the new theory?
15. Is the proposed theory intervention’s relevance compellingly demonstrated?
16. Does the article address potential limitations?

Acknowledgments
I feel greatly indebted to a number of colleagues who provided comments and
feedback on this or an earlier version of this editorial. These people are: David
Boromisza-Habashi, Olga Bailey, Klaus Bruhn Jensen, Cynthia Carter, Jonathan
Cohen, François Cooren, Robert T. Craig, Edward Donnerstein I, Wolfgang Dons-
bach, Cindy Gallois, John Hartley, Michael Higgins, Dafna Lemish, Christine
Lohmeier, Erik Neveu, John Oetzel, John D. Peters, Donnalyn Pompper, Jeanne
Prinsloo, Thorsten Quandt, Daniel Robichaud, Jan Servaes, Raka Shome, Katerina
Tsetsura, Karin Wahl-Jorgensen, and David Weaver.

References
Alexander, A., & Potter, W. J. (2001). How to publish your communication research: An
insider’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

8 Communication Theory 23 (2013) 1–9 © 2013 International Communication Association

T. Hanitzsch Editorial

Burgoon, J. K. (2001). The challenge of writing the theoretical essay. In A. Alexander, & W. J.
Potter (Eds.), How to publish your communication research: An insider’s guide
(pp. 47–56). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Craig, R. T. (1991). Editorial. Communication Theory, 1, 1–3.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Potter, W. J. (2001). Avoiding writing traps. In A. Alexander, & W. J. Potter (Eds.), How to
publish your communication research: An insider’s guide (pp. 13–21). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Thomas Hanitzsch

Communication Theory 23 (2013) 1–9 © 2013 International Communication Association 9