commres-topic-selection
GitHub用于评估传播学研究选题是否契合定量社会科学研究标准。通过测试沟通科学问题、可检验机制、定量识别和严谨测量四个维度，帮助作者将描述性想法转化为具有理论贡献的假设检验研究，避免仅关注平台新颖性或定性案例。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill commres-topic-selection -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "commres-topic-selection",
"description": "Use when deciding whether a communication project fits Communication Research (CR) and is shaped as quantitative, theory-testing social science. CR rewards a clear communication-science question with a testable mechanism, not platform novelty or description. Helps frame the question; it does not collect data."
}
Topic Selection & Fit (commres-topic-selection)
CR is SAGE's quantitative, social-scientific communication journal. The bar is not "new on this platform" or "interesting case" — it is "advances communication science with a testable mechanism." Use this skill to pressure-test fit before you invest.
When to trigger
- Choosing among possible projects or framings for a CR submission
- A reviewer/colleague said the paper feels "descriptive," "atheoretical," or "qualitative for CR"
- Deciding whether CR or a sibling (JoC, HCR, New Media & Society) is the right home
- Sharpening a vague effect into a hypothesis-testing communication-science question
The CR fit test
A strong CR paper usually clears all four:
- Communication-science question. It is about a communication process — message effects, media processing, persuasion, interpersonal/organizational dynamics, health or political communication, new-media use and effects — framed at the level of constructs, not one anecdote.
- A testable mechanism, not just a finding. CR rewards why and for whom: a mediating process (mediation), a boundary condition (moderation), or an adjudication between rival accounts.
- Quantitative identification. An experiment, survey/panel, or content analysis with measured
constructs that can credibly test the hypotheses (see
commres-research-design). - Rigorous measurement. Validated multi-item scales or a reliability-tested codebook — CR reviewers scrutinize whether the measured thing is the construct claimed.
Study-type framing (lead with the process, not the platform)
| Home area | Reach CR by… |
|---|---|
| Media effects / processing | name the cognitive/affective mechanism and test it, not just a stimulus response |
| Persuasion / message effects | model the message feature → mediator → outcome path, with rival accounts |
| Interpersonal / organizational | generalize the relational mechanism; measure it, do not infer it from one case |
| Health / political communication | show the audience/message process that travels beyond one topic |
| New-media use & effects | test the use→effect process; platform is the site, the process is the contribution |
Fit-screen decision table (what survives editorial screening)
| Candidate framing | Editor's likely read | Move before submitting |
|---|---|---|
| "First study of X on TikTok" | descriptive, platform-bound | recast as a tested communication mechanism the site exposes |
| "Interview study of how users feel about Y" | qualitative — wrong venue | re-route to JoC/NMS, or add a measured, hypothesis-testing component |
| "We measured a main effect of frame on attitude" | thin without mechanism | add the mediator/moderator that explains why and for whom |
| "Replication of a 2010 priming effect" | incremental unless adjudicating | frame as resolving a live measurement or boundary dispute |
| "Message feature M → mediator → outcome, moderated by C" | strong CR fit | proceed |
Calibration anchor: the CR "process + measurement" bar (hedged)
CR's recurring substantive rejection is "effect documented, process untested" or "construct validity unclear." A health-comm and a political-comm reviewer should both recognize the communication process and trust the measurement. A heuristic about rigor and reach, not a quota.
Worked micro-example: rescuing a descriptive idea (illustrative)
Initial pitch: "How do influencers label sponsored posts on Instagram?" — descriptive, platform-locked. Through the fit test, the CR question is when disclosure cues trigger persuasion knowledge that discounts a message, and for whom — a measurable process. Reframed as a 2 (disclosure present/absent) experiment testing message → persuasion-knowledge (mediator) → attitude, moderated by prior trust, with validated scales. Now it tests a mechanism with rigorous measurement — a credible CR study, not a platform note.
Anti-patterns
- "No one has studied this on platform X" as the whole contribution (descriptive, platform-only)
- A qualitative or purely interpretive design proposed for a quantitative venue
- A main effect with no mediator/moderator (CR wants process and boundary conditions)
- Measures introduced with no validity or reliability evidence
- A question too sprawling to test convincingly within the page budget
Output format
【Question】one sentence
【Communication process】the construct-level mechanism at stake
【Contribution type】mechanism / boundary condition / adjudication / measurement-corrected effect
【Identification】experiment / survey-panel / content analysis
【Fit verdict】strong / needs reframing / off-fit (route to which sibling?)
【Next】commres-literature-positioning
Supplementary resources
../../resources/external_tools.md— data sources by communication area../../resources/official-source-map.md— CR scope, page limits, APA reporting
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:38
