Research Chair Carolina Velloso is overseeing the tremendous task of running this year’s research competition, which is no small feat. In the last few years, we’ve seen some changes in terms of who submits papers to the History Division and what subjects they cover – at the last AEJMC, we had an extraordinarily high number of graduate student submissions.
Carolina is here to provide some insight into the process of submitting and reviewing. All paper submissions are due April 1. We can’t talk enough about how important a robust pool of reviewers is to the success of the paper competition and in ensuring each paper receives constructive feedback. Please take the time to fill out this brief survey to sign up as a reviewer.
Can you start by explaining the role of the research chair and the work that you do for the division? Why did you want to step into this position?
My primary responsibilities involve managing the Division’s annual paper competition. This includes writing the paper call, coordinating the review process, sending acceptances and rejections, determining award winners, creating the schedule for the Division’s paper sessions, and recruiting moderators and discussants.
This position is especially rewarding because it directly supports the presentation of so much innovative and engaging research at the conference! I love facilitating a constructive competition and review process that helps authors sharpen their ideas and builds anticipation and excitement for the Division’s programming.
How have the reviews you’ve received from the History Division helped you in your career?
I truly believe that the kindness and constructive feedback I received from History Division reviewers played a pivotal role in shaping my career (and inspired me to be involved with the Division!). As a first-year graduate student, I submitted my very first full paper to the Joint Journalism and Communication History Conference, a regional conference co-sponsored by the History Division and the American Journalism Historians Association. The feedback and encouragement I received there motivated me to revise the paper and submit it to the national AEJMC conference, where it went on to win the Top Student Paper Award and the Diversity in Journalism History Award in the History Division. This outcome was made possible in large part by the reviewers who took my work seriously and invested in its development.
What makes a constructive review? What three pieces of advice or guidance do you have for reviewers?
The most effective reviews are “critically kind.” That is, they thoughtfully balance recognition of a project’s strengths with clear, constructive guidance for improvement. In that spirit, I offer three main suggestions for reviewers:
- Begin by identifying what the author(s) did well. Acknowledging the strengths of the work signals respect for the time, care, and intellectual effort invested in the project. It also clarifies what should be preserved as revisions move forward.
- Articulate specific areas for improvement. The most valuable feedback goes beyond pointing out limitations to provide actionable suggestions for next steps. Concrete guidance helps authors make a specific plan for revisions.
- Evaluate the project on its own terms. Your role is to assess the work as it has been written, not as you would have designed it. The aim is not to redesign the project according to your preferences, but to help strengthen it as conceived.
And a bonus suggestion, don’t forget to evaluate the reference list as well! Confirming the paper cites primary sources such as archival documents, contemporary journalism, or oral histories is an excellent way to gauge its relevance to the Division. And confirming that the primary sources cited in the paper actually exist with a quick online search is one of the best ways to help us ensure the scholarly integrity of the competition!
The History Division is accepting research-in-progress (RIP) submissions this year. Can you tell us what the difference is between a RIP submission and an extended abstract? What things should reviewers keep in mind when evaluating this type of submission?
Research-in-Progress (RIP) submissions are projects that are actively underway but not yet complete at the time of presentation. Unlike extended abstracts, which typically require data collection and analysis to be nearly finished, with the primary limitation being time to prepare a full manuscript, RIPs are ideal for emerging research ideas, pilot studies, data collection efforts, or early analyses that show strong potential for scholarly contribution.
Our leadership team had a discussion early on as to whether we’d continue to offer the option to submit research-in-progress along with full papers (versus only focusing on full papers, as some other divisions are doing). We strongly felt that offering two different submission formats was the most equitable to our membership. Good historical research takes time and is, very often, a solo endeavor. This format allows folks who can’t produce a full paper the option to present and benefit from feedback on their scholarship – something we see as especially valuable to our early career membership.
How can History Division members help this year’s paper competition?
The best way members can help is to sign up to review! Reviewers are truly the engine that makes the AEJMC conference possible. We anticipate needing at least 50 reviewers this year, so if you are willing and able, please consider signing up. Your participation makes a real difference, not only in sustaining the conference, but in supporting and mentoring fellow scholars through constructive, engaged feedback!