Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The journal aims to publish studies at the intersection of communication and media studies, including topics as politics (policy), culture, and society grasped by mediatization context. The general idea of the topics includes: political communication, media & communication studies; (inter)cultural communication; traditional and new media in local and global communication.

The detailed topics

1) mediatization theory – conceptual studies devoted to its essence, different stages and manifestation, as well as its verification in diverse social conditions (conceptualizing mediatization);

2) methodological challenges for mediatization research;

3) changing roles of old media and new media usage (mediated- and computer-mediated communication; various aspects of media convergence);

4) dimensions of mediatization:

  • mediatization of politics (power), policymaking and political participation;
  • mediatization of popular culture and styles of life (transcultural and transnational  perspectives; mediatization in late modernity; changing social practices of media usage and mediatized practices of everyday life);
  • mediatization of religion in transnational and transcultural perspectives;
  • mediatization of business and marketing techniques;
  • understanding political, social and cultural change, using the lens of mediatization concept;
  • philosophy of media(tization) and mediatized communication: axiology, epistemology, and ontology of mediatized world(s);
  • media linguistics;
  • social change inspired by mediatisation;
  • media as political/cultural institutions;
  • media and constructivism: mediated reflection of the real world and the construction of reality (“pictures of the world in our heads”);
  • dynamics of mediatization processes in different geographical, political and cultural regions/environments (comparative mediatization research);
  • political economy of mediatization;
  • mediatization processes in historical perspective

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Reviews and Interviews

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Conference reports

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

1. Before submitting the manuscript, Authors must pre-review their papers according to the ‘Author’s Guidelines’ as well as the ‘Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement’.

2. In the first step of the editorial process the submitted manuscript is pre-reviewed by the Editorial Board, who verify the compliance of the manuscript with the journal’s aims and scope policy. In this stage the Editorial Board also considers the correspondence of the manuscript with the editorial principles, including ‘Author’s Guidelines’ as well as the ‘Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement’. In cases where the manuscript is not prepared in complete correspondence with these documents, the Board asks Authors for corrections and improvements. When the manuscript is not in compliance with the Journal’s field editorial policy the proposal of the manuscript must be rejected.

3. Once an article has passed the initial step of the evaluation process, it is sent for peer review. Two independent reviewers are selected in accordance with their field expertise and settled by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the members of Editorial Board. The names of the selected Reviewers of the individual manuscript are not disclosed (double blind review), and the complete list of the Reviewers list is published on the Journal website.

4. The review process is double-blind and anonymous. When appointing the Reviewers, the request letters are sent to selected scholars with expertise in the proper field in command. The review of each manuscript has a written form and it must be concluded with an unequivocal conclusion: 1) accept without revisions; 2) major revisions; 3) minor revisions; 4) reject.

5. The Editorial Board informs the Authors about the decisions of the Reviewers and sends them copies of the reviews. In cases when the paper is not rejected by both Reviewers, but needs major or minor revisions, the Board also sends instructions for the preparation of the final version of the manuscript (including both the Reviewers’ recommendations and the Author Guidelines). After re-submission of the manuscript the Board evaluates it and qualifies for publishing. In justified cases, in particular when the corrections are not apparent, the Reviewer/s can be requested to re-evaluate the corrected version of the manuscript. In cases when the decisions of the reviewers are contradictory (e. g. reject and accept without revisions), the Editorial Board is entitled to request an additional review to make the justified decision about publishing of the manuscript.

6. It takes more or less 1-2 months for the Editorial Board to give the first answer about the manuscript and to pass the paper to the Reviewers. The review process takes on average 2 months, but can be extended to 3 months when some extra time is needed to accomplish the evaluation. Taking into account the time that is necessary for the Authors to make corrections and improvements recommended in the reviews, it takes between 6 to 12 months to complete the publication process.

7. Manuscripts taking the form of articles undergo peer review process, while reviews, interviews and conference reports are qualified for publication after the acceptance of Editorial Team.

 

Publication Frequency

The journal is published as a yearbook.

 

Open Access Policy

Mediatization Studies is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI (Budapest Open Access Initiative) definition of open access. The articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY).

 

Reviewers list

  • Abdul Wahab Juliana, Sains Malaysia University
  • Agostinho Daniela, Aarhus University
  • Annusewicz Olgierd, University of Warsaw
  • Balama Vita, Ventspils University of Applied Sciences
  • Bendrat Anna, Maria Curie Skłodowska University, Lublin
  • Bielak Tomasz, Silesia University
  • Brodzińska-Mirowska Barbara, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń
  • Bukowski Michał, Jagiellonian University, Kraków
  • Czarnek-Wnuk Paulina, University of Lodz
  • Dodds Tomas, Leiden University
  • Dreijers Guntars, RISEBA University, Riga,
  • Ehrlen Veera, University of Jyväskylä
  • Frania Monika, Silesia University
  • Furman Wojciech, University of Rzeszow
  • Gębicka Ewa, Silesia University
  • Giereło-Klimaszewska Katarzyna, WSB Merito University, Wrocław
  • Grishaeva Ekaterina, University of Bremen
  • Grochala Woźniak Beata, University of Lodz
  • Guzek Damian, Silesia University
  • Hand Martin, Queen's University
  • Hess Agnieszka, Jagiellonan University, Kraków
  • Hodalska Magdalena, Jagiellonian University
  • Kannesngiesser Sigrid, University of Münster
  • Karlsson Ragnar, University of Iceland
  • Kopecka-Piech Katarzyna, University of Wrocław (currently: Maria Curie Skłodowska University, Lublin)
  • Kreft Jan, Gdańsk University of Technology
  • Łódzki Bartłomiej, Wrocław University
  • Łukasik-Turecka Agnieszka, Catholic University of Lublin
  • Mazur Marek, Silesia University
  • Milioni Dimitra, Cyprus University of Technology
  • Naruszewicz-Duchlińska Alina, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn
  • Nyarwi Ahmad, Gadjah Mada University, Bulaksumur Yogyakart
  • Palczewski Marek, SWPS University
  • Piechota Grażyna, Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Krakow University (currently: Maria Curie Skłodowska University, Lublin
  • Piontek Dorota, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań
  • Popiołek Malwina, Jagiellonian University, Kraków
  • Sasińska-Klas Teresa, Jagiellonian University, Kraków
  • Seklecka Aleksandra, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń
  • Skowronek Bogusław, University of the National Education Commission, Kraków
  • Sławek-Czochra Małgorzata, Catholic University of Lublin
  • Smoleń-Wawrzusiszyn Magdalena, Catholic University of Lublin
  • Svenonius Ola, Stockholm University
  • Ślawska Magdalena, Silesia University
  • Thaiane Oliveira, Fluminense Federal University, Rio de Janeiro
  • Toker Huriye, Yaşar University, Izmir
  • Tomczak Łukasz, University of Szczecin
  • Veel Kristin, University of Copenhagen
  • Wielopolska-Szymura Mirosława, University of Silesia
  • Wojtkowski Łukasz, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń
  • Žúborová Viera, Bratislava Policy Institute
  • Żukiewicz Przemysław, University of Wrocław

 

Ethical Publishing Practices for the journal “Mediatization Studies”

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

“Mediatization Studies” takes its responsibility for respecting ethical principles at all stages of the publishing process. We are committed to ensuring compliance with ethical standards by everybody who is engaged in this process, including the representatives of the Publisher as well as Editors, Reviewers and Authors of the manuscripts.

“Mediatization Studies” follows COPE’s Guidance for Editors: research, audit and service evaluations; https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/guidance-editors-research-audit-and-service-evaluations

Duties and rights of the Publisher and Editors

The main responsibilities of the Publisher include protecting intellectual property and copyright, ensuring the autonomy of editorial decisions and providing practical support to Editors so that they can follow the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal. The Editors’ right to editorial freedom consists of full responsibility for editorial decisions on individual manuscripts.

Fair play and accountability

Editors representing the Publisher are responsible for deciding about the manuscripts submitted to the journal, and their accountability includes the integrity of the review and publication processes. Editors evaluate manuscripts on the basis of their academic merit and its relevance to the journal’s scope and policy as well as legal requirements, without regard to the Authors’ personal profiles or any external institutional policies. Editors ensure a fair and double-blind-review process of the manuscripts, where all information related to them is kept confidential as well as where both Authors’ and Reviewers’ identities are protected. Editors are responsible for ensuring that appropriate reviewers, who are in command of the expertise in the appropriate field, are selected and requested to prepare the evaluation in a designated time. We do not concider multiple submissions and redundant publications.

Confidentiality, disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any information or ideas obtained by Editors when processing the manuscripts has to be kept confidential. Editors will treat received manuscripts as confidential documents and will not disclose any information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the corresponding Author, Reviewers and the members of Editorial Board. Editors are also responsible for ensuring that unpublished materials contained in a submitted manuscript will not be used or disclosed to anybody beside Editors or Reviewers. Editors and editorial staff will not use materials disclosed in the manuscript for their own scientific goals. The Editors and invited Reviewer who has conflicts of interest or competing interest should refuse to consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest related to scientific collaboration or personal relations.

Publication decisions and editorial independence

Editors will implement every necessary step of the editorial process to ensure the high quality of publication results. The Editor-in-Chief, in collaboration with the Editorial Board, is responsible for deciding about the publication of manuscripts. Editors evaluate manuscripts based entirely on the importance, relevance, originality, validity and clarity of the manuscript. The decision is based on the Reviewers’ recommendations and the legal requirements. The Editors provide Author guidance and the peer review processes.

Handling of unethical publishing behaviour

Editors are responsible for conducting a proper and fair investigation into ethical complaints and appeals. Every reported act of alleged or proven scientific misconduct and unethical publishing behaviour, including: fraudulent publication, libel, copyright infringement or plagiarism, etc. will be carefully considered by The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board. In case of suspected misconduct, they follow the COPE rules and take responsive measures concerning ethical problems, raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. These measures include clarifying the situation and amending the article in question, erratum or retraction the paper under question.

Duties and rights of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour. “Mediatization Studies” shares the view that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing. Peer review assists editors in making high quality editorial decisions and helps Authors improve and complete their manuscripts. The Reviewers are selected in accordance with their field expertise, however any invited Referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript should immediately notify the Editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Any observations, comments and critical remarks should be based on clear and scientifically grounded arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the Authors is inappropriate and should not have any influence on editorial decisions.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the Authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications, should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewer should also notify the Editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such. They must not be shown to or discussed with anybody who is not formally engaged in the editorial process. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation. Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the Authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the Reviewer’s personal advantage.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited Reviewer who has conflicts of interest or competing interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with Authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript, should immediately notify the Editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review.

Duties and rights of Authors

Compliance with substantive standards

Authors are expected to submit original research and to give an accurate account of their research, accompanied by the detailed description of methods applied to obtain the results, which should be followed by an objective discussion. The manuscript should contain sufficient details and references to permit others to replicate the work. Authors are entitled to open access publishing and they are free to use links to their published papers as well as to share the published papers online or offline in the final format printed on the Journal website.

Authorship of the manuscript

Authorship of a manuscript should be limited to Authors who meet the following authorship criteria: a) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition or analysis and interpretation of the research; b) prepared the draft of the manuscript or revised it critically; c) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. The corresponding Author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included in the author list.

Originality and plagiarism

Authors should ensure that they have written and submitted only entirely original works. The summaries, paraphrases or citations of the work of others should be appropriately referenced. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. In order to eliminate plagiarism, Authors may not ‘pass off’ another's paper as the Author's own, copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper without reference to the source work, or claiming results from research conducted by others as their own. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Peer review

Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and to cooperate fully by responding promptly to Editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and adherence to ethical principles as well as copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision in which major or minor revisions of the manuscript are necessary, Authors should respond to the Reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.

Data access, disclosure and conflicts of interest

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review. Authors should also ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication, provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release. Authors should—at the earliest stage possible—disclose any conflicts of interest that might influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript, including financial, educational or other funding interests as well as well any non-financial interests, such as personal or professional relationships. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed by presenting a grant number or other reference number.

Authors of manuscripts are expected to make their research data used to produce the results and conclusions available to reviewers and editors of the journal. Access to the data should be provided during the review process and for at least 5 years after the publication date. Access to raw data is motivated by a desire for transparency and reproducibility of research. We also encourage authors to make their data available to the research community in publicly accessible repositories. If access or sharing of data is not possible or limited, authors should explain these limitations.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves the use of human participants, the Authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) approved them. The manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed and respected.