Thursday, May 24Институт «Высшая школа журналистики и массовых коммуникаций» СПбГУ

Regulations on reviewing


  1. Manuscripts received by the editors of the “Media Linguistics” scientific journal are subject to mandatory anonymous expert evaluation.
  2. The editor checks the article for compliance with the profile of the journal, as well as compliance with the requirements for the technical design of manuscripts. Manuscripts, which do not meet the requirements, are sent for revision.
  3. The editor in chief, together with members of the editorial board, appoints two reviewers.
  4. The reviewer must have an academic degree of a candidate or a doctor of science (articles written by scientists with a doctoral degree are reviewed only by specialists with a doctoral degree), have in-depth knowledge in a particular scientific direction, be an expert on the subject matter of the peer-reviewed material, have publications on the relevant subjects.
  5. The manuscript undergoes a double-blind review process: before sending articles to reviewers, manuscripts are depersonalized in order to obtain an objective review.
  6. The reviewer evaluates the received manuscript on the following criteria: the relevance of the topic; theoretical and practical significance of the presented results; scientific level of the publication; novelty of the concept and originality of the approach; language and structural (compositional) completeness of the text.
  7. Based on the analysis of the article, the reviewer proposes the conclusion: to recommend the article for publication OR to recommend the article for publication after a minor revision, taking into account the recommendations of the reviewer OR to recommend to significantly refine the article, and then re-review OR to recommend to reject the article.
  8. The review shall contain the name of the reviewer, academic degree, position and place of work, as well as an e-mail address. The signature of the reviewer is certified in the personnel department at the place of work.
  9. Comments and recommendations of reviewers are sent by the editorial staff to the authors by e-mail without specifying the names of reviewers. Based on the results of the review, the author, taking into account the recommendations of reviewers, prepares an updated version of the text, or refuses the arguments or part of them reasonably. The article, developed with consideration of the recommendations of reviewers, is being prepared for publication or sent for re-review in accordance with the expert’s conclusion.
  10. The following comments of reviewers should be unconditionally accepted by the author: the absence of references to the literature cited; absence or unreliability of conclusions; absence of mandatory elements of the article, such as: annotations, keywords, information about the author, in-text references to scientific sources listed in the list of literature, etc.; duplication of material.
  11. Manuscripts are considered in the order they are received within one to six months. The editor-in-chief and the editorial board make the final decision to publish the article.
  12. After the editorial board accepts the decision to publish, the executive secretary of the editorial board informs the author about it and informs about the expected terms of publication.
  13. In case the article cannot be published, the editorial team sends a motivated refusal to the author by e-mail.
  14. The original reviews are stored in the editorial board of the journal for five years. The reviews are submitted to the WAC by special requests of expert councils.