Reviews
Information about reviews for medien & zeit
With their expert opinions, reviewers significantly contribute to ensuring the academic standards of the articles that appear in medien & zeit. The following criteria are intended to keep the workload for the reviewers as manageable as possible, while still creating a framework that enables a profound assessment for authors and editors.
On behalf of the editors, publishers and authors, the Working Group for Historical Communication Research (Arbeitskreis für historische Kommunikationsforschung) would like to thank all reviewers for their willingness to invest in the quality assurance of medien & zeit.
Review criteria
The following points in the form of guiding questions should be addressed in the reviews. The typical length of a review is between ½ and one manuscript page. Since the reviews are forwarded to the authors, we ask that critical comments be formulated in such a way that they are as acceptable as possible and feasible for the authors. The reviews should be detailed enough for authors to be able to make the necessary changes or understand the reasons for a revision or possible rejection in order to make appropriate improvements.
- Relevance & contribution to scientific discourse: To what extent does the article add value to the current state of research? To what extent does the article's contribution go beyond previously published work? How is the social/societal relevance of the article to be assessed? How relevant is the submission to the thematic focus or orientation of medien & zeit? Is there a clear reference to historical communication research, or to what extent does the article have a historicising perspective?
- Approach, method & argumentation: Is the approach or method clear and comprehensible? In the case of empirical work: Is the data collection and analysis adequate? Is the argumentation well-founded and conclusive? Are the strengths and weaknesses of the described approach, method or argumentation made transparent?
- Completeness & comprehensibility: Has the topic been fully addressed in accordance with the scope of the article? Does the scope of the submission correspond to the scientific content? Are all the questions and lines of argumentation raised explained and discussed? Is a clear “red thread” recognisable? Is the article linguistically appropriate or are there any linguistic ambiguities? Is the article linguistically free of discrimination?
Spelling and grammatical errors should not be the focus of the review. If orthographic errors lead to ambiguities in content, this can be noted in general. Authors are encouraged to proofread their submissions carefully (if interested, see Author Guidelines).
If reviewers suspect scientific misconduct by authors (e.g. plagiarism, multiple publications, falsification of results), please contact the editors and explain your suspicions. The editors will discuss further steps together with the board of the Working Group for Historical Communication Research and - if desired - involve the reviewers in the further process.
Decision categories and conditions
Reviewers are asked to make a recommendation for acceptance or rejection based on a 5-point scale of (1) Accept, (2) Needs revision, (3) Resubmit for review, (4) Resubmit elsewhere, and (5) Reject.
The reviewers’ comments are the basis for the editor’' decision on acceptance or rejection and should therefore be detailed enough to make a decision based on the feedback from all reviews. Therefore, even reviews that recommend acceptance without major revisions should provide enough information for the editors to understand the rationale. If the reviewers’ assessments contradict each other, the editors can make informed decisions.
The decision on acceptance or rejection is made by the editors and the decision, including reviews, is communicated to the authors by the editors.
A specific comments section is available for comments to the editors that are not intended to be read by the authors. These comments are treated confidentially and are not passed on to the authors.
Peer review process
medien & zeit follows a two-stage submission and peer review process: Authors submit extended abstracts to a Call for Papers. These are viewed by the editors of the issue, pre-selected based on the same review criteria as described below and the respective authors are invited to write a full paper.
The full articles submitted in the next step are reviewed by at least two reviewers in a double blind process. Reviewers are invited by the Working Group for Historical Communication Research (AHK) or by the respective editorial team of the medien & zeit issue based on their expertise.
Submissions and reviews are made via the OJS editorial management system. Reviewers receive a link that leads them to the reviewed article in the system. Further instructions are provided by the system.
Based on the reviews, the editorial team decides whether to accept or reject the article, as well as the extent of the desired revisions (minor or major). If necessary, the decision is discussed in the Working Group and a further review may be obtained.
The authors receive all reviews as well as a meta-review, which summarises the most important aspects from the editors’ point of view and, if necessary, contains suggestions for the revision. Authors can add 1000 words to their contributions for the revisions.
Anonymity and confidentiality
medien & zeit follows a double-blind peer review process. Reviewers are therefore required to remain anonymous and to write their reviews in such a way that they do not allow any conclusions to be drawn about their identity.
However, in order to emphasise the contribution of the reviewers, the names of the reviewers are published in medien & zeit at regular intervals. The publication is collective and without reference to the contributions. If you do not wish to be named as a reviewer in this collective form, please let us know at redaktion@medienundzeit.at.
Conflicts of interest
Reviewers are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest and, if necessary, reject reviews if they are unable to view a submission impartially. Examples of conflicts of interest include the following:
- Direct involvement of the reviewer in the research work of the article.
- The reviewer works together with one of the authors / at the same institution / is in a supervisory relationship with the author.
- The reviewer is related to one of the authors.
- The reviewer has unpublished results that are related to the content of the submission.
- There is a personal or professional conflict between the reviewer and the authors.
