Review process

Studies and essays are subject to the review process, while other types of texts (polemics, interviews, reviews, and reports) are not – should they be accepted for publication depends on the decision of the journal’s editorial board.

Manuscripts aimed for peer review are first assessed by the journal’s editor-in-chief. She evaluates whether the manuscripts meet the aims and scope of the journal and also the basic requirements of research papers (clear and coherent use of terminology, convincing scope and quality of the literature cited, language and formal issues). If the texts do not meet these criteria, they are rejected (desk rejection). If they do, the editor-in-chief includes them in the review process.

Mediální studia / Media Studies Journal operates a conventional double-blind reviewing policy in which the reviewer’s name is concealed from the submitting author and vice versa. The submitted manuscripts are reviewed by two independent reviewers (in the case of a study) or by one reviewer (in the case of an essay). Reviewers who are experts on the topic of the article reviewed are selected and invited by the editor-in-chief after possible consultation with the journal’s editors. Commonly, the review process takes 2-3 months from the acknowledgment of the manuscript receipt. The editorial staff ensure the compliance with the deadline; however, it does not take responsibility for possible delays caused by the reviewers. Depending on the recommendations contained in the reviews, the editor-in-chief takes following steps:

1. If both reviewers recommend the manuscript for publication, it is accepted. One of the journal’s editors works on the final version of the text with the author.
2. If one or both reviewers have partial objections to the text and recommend minor revisions, the author is prompted to take them into account in the text. The editor-in-chief considers whether these adjustments are sufficient.
3. If one or both reviewers have more critical objections to the text (major revisions are recommended), the author is invited to take them into account in the text. Also, in this case, the author is asked to write a short and intelligible summary of changes made in relation to reviewers’ comments. The editor-in-chief considers whether these adjustments are sufficient. Should she have doubts, she sends the revised text to the original reviewers.
   1. If the reviewers agrees with the revised version or recommends minor revisions, the author is informed about their stance. The text is passed further to one of the journal’s editors who works on the final version of the text with the author.
   2. If the reviewers do not agree with the revised version, the text is returned to the author, thus returning to the starting point from point 3. In the case of uncertainty about the reviewer’s performance, the editor-in-chief may, after consulting other journal’s editors, request a review from the third reviewer.
4. If one reviewer does not recommend the publication and the other reviewer does recommend it (either he/she/they has no objections, or opts for minor or major revisions), the editor-in-chief may, after consulting other journal’s editors, request a third reviewer.
5. If one or both reviewers do not recommend accepting text, the manuscript is rejected.

The author is informed by e-mail about the result of the review process. If the author does not consider all or some of the reviewers’ recommendations to be substantively justified, they may explain their views in a letter addressed to the editor-in-chief. The final decision whether to accept or reject the manuscript is made by the editor-in-chief in cooperation with other journal’s editors. In the case of conflict, the editorial board is invited to make the decision.

The author of the manuscript returned for revision shall revise their text within the deadline specified by the editor-in-chief. The author tracks changes in the document, or makes them visible by colour highlight.