Peer-Review

Journalism Research
Peer-Review

This journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. To facilitate this, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity.

Based on the following criteria, the reviewers assess if the paper may be accepted without revisions, with minor or major revisions, or if it should be rejected. The core of any review is an objective assessment of both the technical rigour and the novelty of the presented work.

    1. Clarity of thesis statement and declaration of purpose.
    2. The relevance of the theoretical discussion and description of the empirical investigation.
    3. Reproducible methods of the research and results.
    4. Well-founded discussion/analysis.
    5. Well-structured and logically coherent composition.
    6. Unambiguous and properly analysed data.
    7. Data supported by conclusions.
    8. The originality of the work. Awareness of relevant research. 

      1. Provide written, unbiased feedback on the scholarly merits and scientific value of the work, together with the rationale for your opinion.
      2. Provide your peer-review as soon as possible within 21 day. If you cannot do so, please contact the journal office immediately at journal platform.
      3. Indicate whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant and rate the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to readers.
      4. Avoid personal comments or criticism.
      5. Maintain the confidentiality of the peer-review process by not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper without permission from the editorial office.

      1. Alert the editor to any potential personal or financial conflict of interest (see Ethical policy, Conflicts of interest) you may have and decline to review when a possibility of a conflict exists.
      2. Determine scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work and suggest ways to improve it.
      3. Note any ethical concerns, such as the substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript concurrently submitted elsewhere.

      1. Ensure that positively reviewed papers meet the journal standards.
      2. Protect readers from incorrect or flawed research or studies that cannot be validated by others.
      3. Be alert to any failure to cite relevant work by other scientists.

Reviews can and should be critical, but we ask reviewers to keep in mind that dismissive language and personalised criticisms may be viewed as reflecting bias or ulterior motives on the part of the referee.

The journal Editorial Office handles the administrative aspects of the peer-review process for contributed papers. All peer-reviews must be submitted through the Peer-review system.

Editors of the journal are asking reviewers to prepare their reviews using a template. [nuoroda į template]

Instructions to Reviewers
In the journal, we aim to provide authors with clear feedback that will help to guide them as they improve their work. To help us do this, we ask (but do not require) that you prepare your review using the template below. The idea is to anchor specific criticisms and suggestions to the specific points in the paper. In our experience, reviews prepared this way are clearer, and they help us to understand your concerns better so that we can make decisions that are as specific and as helpful as possible.

Comments to authors
Summary: Please provide a general summary of the paper. This summary can be brief. Your thoughts on the level of advance the paper provide and its importance/interest to the community would be helpful. If you feel that prior literature undercuts any part of the paper, please provide references.

Critique: Please list the main points of the paper. For each point, indicate whether the data sufficiently support that point. If the point is not sufficiently supported, please indicate the kind of evidence is you feel is required, and include any suggestions for specific experiments. If you feel that certain concerns are more crucial than others, it would be helpful to highlight them.

Other comments: Please comment on any other issues (technical, data presentation, textual changes) that are not necessarily linked to any of the specific points of the paper.

Confidential comments to the editor
These comments will be blinded to the authors.

Papers submitted to the journal are first read by the journal’s editors, who determine if the topic is in line with the journal’s focus and if it corresponds to basic quality criteria. Manuscripts that are inappropriate for the journal are rejected at that point. Manuscripts that are not prepared in a journal style are returned to the authors.

Papers submitted to the journal should satisfy the following criteria: clarity of exposition, readability, perfect English and/or Lithuanian. Only original papers will be considered. Manuscripts are accepted for review with the understanding that the same work has not been and will not be and is not being currently submitted elsewhere. All of the authors must have approved submission for publication. 

Editorial Board will take actions stated in COPE flowcharts if any malpractice is suspected. Papers submitted in the journal are sent out to peer reviewers, although submissions that are out of scope for the journal or are of an unacceptably low standard may be rejected without review. At least two experts will generally review manuscripts in the field with the aim of reaching a first decision as soon as possible. The journals’ Editors-in-Chief make all publication decisions by the reviews provided.

If a manuscript has some potential and is reasonably close to the proper format, it is sent out for review to persons with specialised expertise matched to the manuscript's subject matter.

The journal uses Open Journal System as a peer-review system for electronic submission and blind peer review of manuscripts by at least two experts in the field.

If the paper is accepted on condition that revisions are made, it is returned to the author/s along with the reviewers’ comments and suggestions for improvements as well as the editors’ recommendations and further comments, if any. The editors base their judgement to a very large extent on the reviewers’ comments, but the responsibility for the final decision is always with the editors.

When requested changes have been made, the author resubmits the revised version of the paper. It is either assessed directly by the editors or goes back into a new review round. Subsequently, the paper is proofread in collaboration with the author/s, and then typeset. The author is offered the possibility to do final proofreading before the paper is published.