Global Perspectives in Communication (GPC)

20 May 2025

... and, we're live! As of today, we are ready to receive your manuscripts in our peer review system, online at mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcomm

EEP! Our editor @bowmanspartan.bsky.social realized that it's been quite some time since we released a journal accountability report. Simply put, we've gotten busy - a good problem to have! Below? A few quick notes on how we're looking so far in 2026.

So we're doing well and we've got plenty of volume for your manuscripts, for sure. We have a growing Editorial Board (currently, 52 members and expanding) and our goal is to grow these numbers.

With the support of @icahdq.bsky.social Authors and @academic.oup.com, as well as a growing global interest in COM, we got this. Submissions? Send 'em over to mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcomm

And the big one? Desk rejection rates. For Research Briefs, we reject around 2/3s of those submitted. The ones we don't desk reject however? Each one has been invited back for R&R.

... and for Research Reports, it's around 50%. Other decisions are below (Reject would be a "Reject with peer review").

Of those papers that have received decisions so far this year (64, for those counting), the majority hear back in less that 30 days. Only four took longer than 60 days (but still in the 60s); only one of those took longer (81 days).

Average times? For Research Briefs (our 4000-word manuscripts), those are turned around in 13 days. For Research Reports (our 8000-word manuscripts), those come back to Authors on average of 24 days.

We're nearing 80 original submissions this calendar year, and this puts us on track to easily peak 100 submissions for our first full calendar year as a journal. Y'all, that's exciting and we thank @icahdq.bsky.social for their ongoing support. It's quick growth.

academic.oup.comEditorial BoardEditor-in-Chief Nick Bowman, PhD Syracuse University Editorial Board Nicole Allen Utah State University, United States Albert Anani-Bossman University

10 Sept

We're at @ecreaeu.bsky.social all week in Brno and we've got So. Many. Board. Members presenting and engaging the conference, including Editor-in-Chief @bowmanspartan.bsky.social. Keep an eye out for our team, and *please do feel free* to ask about the journal! academic.oup.com/gpc/pages/ed...

Global Perspectives in Communication (GPC) reposted

Oxford Academic

@academic.oup.com

26 Aug

Where does great scholarship originate? @gpccomm.bsky.social is challenging assumptions and welcoming worldwide communication research. 🌍 Global perspectives 📖 Open access ⚡ Author-friendly submission process Read more from Editor-in-Chief Dr. Nick Bowman: oxford.ly/4xpyfEK

16 Aug

Last in in our Outstanding Reviewers was Dr. Albert Anani-Bossman of the University of Media, Arts, and Communication in Ghana. Albert is one of our best reviewers for public relations & strategic communication scholarship. We're thrilled to have him on our Board. =) unimac.edu.gh/personnel/dr...

15 Aug

... and again in celebrating our Outstanding Reviewers through our first 100 or so submissions? We have @yanchenko.bsky.social of Research Group Digitalization and the Public Sphere, Institute of Communication Science Jena.

15 Aug

For Kostia, "I see GPC as a space where diverse academic perspectives, contributions, and ways of knowing are genuinely valued and can find a home. I especially appreciate the journal’s horizontal culture ... in the way communication among authors, reviewers, and editors is structured."

mengyanma.comMengyan Ma, Ph.D.

14 Aug

Today's Outstanding Reviewer is Dr. Mengyan Ma, from @michiganstateu.bsky.social! She is an advertising professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences. Read more: www.mengyanma.com

14 Aug

For Mengyan, "the manuscripts I have reviewed have been fascinating, covering timely topics across diverse cultural contexts, countries, and methodological approaches. It has been a wonderful opportunity to learn from scholars around the world while contributing to the peer review process!"

13 Aug

Next up in our Outstanding Reviewers? Dr. Christine Cook, with the Global Communication and Innovation Technology (GCIT) at the National Chengchi University, Taiwan. Read more: ici.nccu.edu.tw/PageStaffing...

13 Aug

For Dr. Cook, "GPC is a place that I feel confident sending promising scholarship from around the world. As a reviewer and editorial board member, I can trust that my fellow reviewers will give top notch, fair evaluations of manuscripts of all kinds ... "

13 Aug

" ... [and] as an author and mentor, I can relay that confidence to people who would benefit and put that rigorous feedback to effective use defining our field's newest horizons."

12 Aug

Oh let's continue that celebration, y'all! We're thrilled to announce our Outstanding Reviewers through to our first 100+ manuscripts. We officially launched at #ICA25 with @icahdq.bsky.social x @academic.oup.com in June 2025, so we're just over one year old. And in that time, we have The Best!

Global Perspectives in Communication (GPC)@gpccomm.bsky.social

This week, we're celebrating our fantastic Editorial Board, a nearly 50-scholar strong group of dedicated folks that really make our journal work. Board members have completed more than 100 reviewers, and *every single Board member* has reviewed for us so far - averaging 25 days to complete.

12 Aug

First up is Dr. Syed Ali Hussain of Uni Manchester, UK. He's been with us from the beginning, often reviewing manuscripts focused on health communication and persuasion.

12 Aug

For Syed, "the challenges we face ... are increasingly global and complex, yet they are all part of the same conversation. GPC provides an international platform where diverse voices & perspectives come together to advance communication arts and science." LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/alihussai...

linkedin.comlinkedin.com

academic.oup.comVolume 1 Issue 3 | Global Perspectives in Communication | Oxford AcademicGlobal Perspectives in Communication

Did y'all realize that we're *already publishing Volume 3?* academic.oup.com/gpc/issue/1/3

doi.orgMechanistic explanations are not immune to biased or heuristic processingAbstract. Teaser text: Mechanistic explanations are assumed to encourage careful reasoning about contentious scientific issues. In an experiment examining

In "Mechanistic explanations are not immune to biased or heuristic processing," Asheley Landrum demonstrated that when reading mechanistic explanations of science, most relied on heuristics, identity signaling, or other forms of engagement unrelated to the mechanism itself. doi.org/10.1093/gpco...

...and more to come! Want to submit yours? Submissions good to go at mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcomm We're reviewing in about 30 or so days on average so ... make it so. =)

academic.oup.comVolume 1 Issue 3 | Global Perspectives in Communication | Oxford AcademicGlobal Perspectives in Communication

Did y'all realize that we're *already publishing Volume 3?* academic.oup.com/gpc/issue/1/3

doi.orgRelational nation branding: extending relationship management theory to Ukraine’s wartime contextExamining Ukraine’s nation branding efforts, this study shows how institutions cultivate relationships with strategic publics during wartime. Drawing on pr

In "Relational nation branding: extending relationship management theory to Ukraine’s wartime context," Viktoriia Savchuk Kennet examines Ukraine’s nation branding efforts, showing how institutions cultivate relationships with strategic publics during wartime. doi.org/10.1093/gpco...

As with any journal, we often have to desk reject papers that aren't quite fitting our focus or "aren't quite there yet." These usually come with fairly extensive desk reviews (from our editor, @bowmanspartan.bsky.social) and an invitation to dialogue. A few fun experiences with Desk Rejects:

... and whenever possible, they should be *rapid* (ours are usually issued within a few days of submission, but we realize that our volume isn't as high as other journals).

But the most critical point? Desk rejects are necessary and useful ... and even a bit normal. Currently, we desk reject about 70% of papers incoming, but we're always willing to take another submission. It's about collaboration and feedback. We promise. =)

Desk rejections are rough. They sting, and there's just no great way to tell a colleague that we're not able to review work.

But there are things we can do -- that all editors and journals can do -- to make sure they're (a) clear, (b) detailed, and (c) actionable. This is the core task of our editor, @bowmanspartan.bsky.social

At least one of the papers in our debut issue was an initial desk reject, that followed up with an author-editor dialogue to clarify and refine a few points before, and then went back to review!

Just this morning, we received an email from a desk rejected author. They eventually published elsewhere, but they wrote to "close the loop" on their scholarship - thanking us for the initial peer review: "Your kindness in delivering a rejection is greatly appreciated."

7 Aug

Attending @aejmc.bsky.social today? Our editor @bowmanspartan.bsky.social will be part of a panel of editors with a spicy topic, "Demystifying Journal Submissions." It's at 1:15 in Balcony J of the conference venue (4th Floor), and he's around before and afterwards. Let's offer some clarity here.

4 Aug

academic.oup.comEditorial BoardEditor-in-Chief Nick Bowman, PhD Syracuse University Editorial Board Nicole Allen Utah State University, United States Albert Anani-Bossman University

4 Aug

Our board comes from all over, and you can see who currently serves online at academic.oup.com/GPC/pages/ed... But stay tuned, because over the next few days, we'll tell you who our Reviewers of the Year where for the last cycle. =)

Earlier today, Editor-in-Chief @bowmanspartan.bsky.social spoke with more than 120 students and early career scholars from Kenya, Nigeria, and other African nations on dispelling myths about academic publishing.

Be careful with "Frankensteining" your arguments together. Citations aren't a practice in name-dropping but rather, they're a careful curation of literature that drives readers to a logically derived central thesis. If the paper cites without integrating across claims and findings, they're scary.

These were a few "tongue-in-cheek" myths that journal editor see often, and we hope that learning a bit more about them helps shapes your arguments and manuscripts. When you're ready? Submit your work, at mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gpcomm

Be *remarkably careful* about using AI/LLS to gussy up your papers. More often than not, it's not so different than The Emperor With No Clothes: you might feel like you've dazzled us with your writing, but we're left a bit confused and embarrassed by generic, hallucinated, and oddly fitting prose.

It's okay that not everything you touch turns to gold. Some projects just don't work out, and avoid the "sunk cost fallacy" of chasing leads that aren't moving your scholarship forward. Learn from the "not quite ready" papers and move your research program forward. =)

Next? It's okay to Have Faith in your findings, and push back on the Goliaths - the editors or reviewers - who might be in your way. You have to show them that your work matters, and help them understand *why* you are so convinced. Engage peer review, and be courageous in your response letters.

Editors are not The Almighty Oz, and you can ask them questions. Ask us about editorial fit, or ask for updates on peer review. It's even okay to ask clarifying questions on peer feedback. (but, be careful not to beg/borrow/pester/lobby editors. Engage earnestly)

One myth? Speed is everything. We have to realize that publications are much more like a marathon than a race, and they often involve various studies and manuscripts rather than one that we rush to market. Think about your *program* of research, and where those incremental findings matter.

forms.gleGlobal Perspectives in Communication - Editorial TeamAre you interested in joining the editorial team for Global Perspectives in Communication? If so, please answer a few short questions below so that we can get you set up in our editorial systems. As w...

27 July

Y'all, we are growing very quickly. In fact, we're going to probably need to expand our Editorial Board before too long, to keep up with the steady uptick in submissions.

27 July

If you're interested in working with us as ad hoc reviewer or potentially an Editorial Board member, please consider completing this survey at forms.gle/7hucWRhsaVnv...