Peer review process
Estudos em Jornalismo e Mídia adopts the anonymous double-blind peer review process in its editorial workflow.
Submitted articles are initially pre-evaluated by the editorial team during the desk review stage, when originality, contribution, relevance, topicality, overall structure, compliance with editorial policies and author guidelines are assessed, as well as text similarity verification (plagiarism screening). Failure to meet any of these criteria results in the rejection and archiving of the article. The average time for this first decision is approximately 10 days.
If the article receives a positive evaluation in the previous stage, it will be forwarded to two reviewers external to EJM, holding doctoral degrees and with expertise in the subject matter of the submitted text. In cases of divergence between evaluations, a third reviewer will be appointed, and so on until a final decision is reached. Authors who have previously published in the journal may be invited to act as reviewers.
Articles are evaluated using the journal’s own evaluation form. According to the review guidelines, the following aspects are considered:
- Text quality (grammar, style, vocabulary, scientific language, clarity of ideas, deductions appropriate to the premises, proper use of citations, and correct application of ABNT standards);
- Theoretical, empirical, or applied research content;
- Mastery of the scientific literature;
- Topical relevance of the subject;
- Relevant and visible contribution to the field of journalism and media communication;
- Detail and relevance of the methodological choice and its correct application;
- Originality in the treatment of the subject;
- Consistency and rigor of the approach;
- Proper text structure and high-quality writing;
- Importance of the findings;
- Other aspects that justify publication.
The editor responsible for the evaluation process will notify the author of “acceptance without revisions,” “mandatory revisions” (with or without a new round of peer review), or “rejection” and archiving of the article.
Editorial decisions are made by the editor-in-chief and associate editors based on the content of the reviews issued and considering criteria such as topicality, publication opportunity, and thematic suitability for dossiers or special issues.
In cases of “mandatory revisions,” the author will have a period of 20 days to submit to EJM the revised article and the response letter commenting on the changes made. A detailed justification must be presented in cases where suggestions are not followed. The editor responsible for the evaluation process will forward the new version of the manuscript and the document containing comments and/or justifications to the reviewers, when appropriate, in order to verify whether the revised text has met the requirements and to inform whether the article may be accepted, rejected, or still requires modifications.
If the final evaluation of the manuscript is “rejected,” the author will be notified of the reason for refusal and the manuscript will be archived. The reviews issued during the evaluation process are decisive and are not subject to appeal.
After acceptance for publication, the article will be forwarded for copyediting and production. Any errors identified after proof reading will be the responsibility of the authors.
The journal may reject articles containing content similar to other works (plagiarism) at any stage of the editorial process in which such similarity is identified.
Translations, book reviews and interviews are assessed within the scope of the editorial team.
The average time between article submission and acceptance after evaluations is 386 days, and from acceptance of the original submission to publication is approximately 90 days.
