Instructions for authors

The quarterly covering the topics of media and communicaton sciences ME.DOK (Media – History- Communication) is asking you to submit your paper to Issues nr 3 and 4.

 

Deadline of submission: 30 August, 2018 and 30 October, 2018. 05. 05.

 

Papers written in Hungarian, Romanian or English are expected on the following topics:

-          New media

-          Printed press and audiovisual media

-          Media History

-          Film

-          Media sociology

-          Media communication

-          Political communication

 

 

Theoretical or historical descriptions of the above mentioned subjects, empirical research studies, case studies are accepted.

 

ME.DOK is included in CEEOL, Index Copernicus (IC) and ERIH +

 

Papers are to be submitted to the following email address: [email protected]

Before submitting your paper please consult the submission guidelines for authors on the following link

http://www.medok.ro/en/submission-guidelines

 

We remind you that ME.DOK is using the double blind peer review system to establish the value of submitted papers. Our peer review policy can be consulted on the following link: http://www.medok.ro/en/peer-review

 

Note that the process may last up to 2-3 month.

 

When submitting your paper, please mention that the paper is sent as a response to the above mentioned call.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

 

The media and communication science journal Me.dok appears both in print and online and is committed to provide a platform where highest standards of publication ethics are the major aspect of the editorial and peer-review process.

 

The Editorial process for a manuscript to the Me.dok  starts when our editorial staff analyses the manuscripts in order to establish if they comply with the general thematic of our journal (media history, media and communication theories, media and culture issues, and similar themes), if they meet the ME.dok’s editorial policy and requirements, and respect the rules enounced in the “Submission guidelines” menu of the medok.ro homepage.

 

If the article respects the basic references described in the precedent phrase, it is received by an editorial and scientific advisory and critic board. Every paper is double-blind peer reviewed, and this process may last between two and three months.

If accepted in the review stage of the Editorial Process, the submission goes through the editing stage which consists of copyediting, layout and proofreading. The manuscript is then scheduled for publication in an issue of the Me.dok.

The relevant duties and expectations of all parties involved in the publishing process including editors, reviewers, authors and others are required to adhere to the publication ethics guidelines and malpractice statements defined below.

 

 

1. PUBLICATION AND AUTHORSHIP

 

All manuscripts should be written and organized in accordance with the guide for authors: https://www.medok.ro/en/submission-guidelines

Manuscripts submitted to this journal must not be under simultaneous consideration by any other journal. Manuscripts submitted to this journal should not have been published elsewhere in identical or substantially similar forms.

 

 

2. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PUBLISHER

 

Publishing Behavior and Unethical Broadcast Handling

 

The publisher takes all necessary precautions for alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, plagiarism or close collaboration with the editors to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question includes clarification or withdrawn of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of manuscript where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

 

 

 

2. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE EDITORS

 

Publication Decisions

 

Editors will ensure that all submissions go through a fast and fair peer-review and editorial procedure. Editors take full responsibility for everything published in the Me.dok hence the acceptance or rejection of the submitted work is Editor’s sole decision.

 

The Principle of Neutrality

 

Editors should evaluate manuscripts on the originality, quality and intellectual content and should not be affected by race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, political philosophy or any other influences. Editors should express the concern and act immediately if they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors.

 

Confidentiality

 

The Editor and any other editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.

 

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

 

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript will not be used by the editor or the members of the editorial board for their own research purposes without the author's explicit written consent. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should require all contributors or authors to disclose relevant conflicts of interest. If conflicts of interest are revealed after publication, corrections must be published or other appropriate actions should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

 

 

3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS

 

Reporting standards

 

Authors are expected to have made reasonable attempts to check and validate results submitted to the journal for publication. This should be followed by the statement to the Editor that all data are real and authentic. Authors of research reports should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

 

Originality and Plagiarism

 

Authors could be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least ten years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data center), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.

 

Authors should ensure that they have written and submitted only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, this should be appropriately cited. Authors will submit only entirely original works, and will appropriately cite or quote the work and/or words of others. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work should also be cited. Plagiarism such as copying another's manuscript as the author's own, paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution) or claiming results from research conducted by others and in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

 

Manuscripts submitted to Me.dok should be original and must not be plagiarized. If plagiarism is proved after publication of the article, that article will be immediately withdrawn and removed from the website and the concerned authors will be considered ineligible for publication of their articles in Me.dok for five years.

 

Acknowledgement of sources

 

Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.

 

Authorship of the Paper

 

Author(s) who meet these authorship criteria should be listed in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content. Firstly, author(s) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study. Secondly author(s) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content. Thirdly author(s) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All other persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission has been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list and verify that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

 

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

 

In general, a manuscript describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

 

Manuscripts which have been published as copyrighted material elsewhere cannot be submitted. In addition, manuscripts under review by the journal should not be resubmitted to copyrighted publications.

 

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest and Financial Support

 

Authors should—at the earliest stage possible (generally by including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).

 

 

Peer Review

 

Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions 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.

 

Fundamental Errors in Published Works

 

When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.

 

 

4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE REVIEWERS

 

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

 

The peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and may also assist the author(s) for improving the manuscript through the editorial communications. All scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

 

Promptness

 

Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself/herself from the review process.

 

Confidentiality

 

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents by the referees. Reviewers must not shown or discuss any manuscripts received for review with others except as authorized by the Editor-in-Chief, who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances. This situation also applies to arbitrators who do not accept the review invitation.

 

Standards of Objectivity

 

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

 

Acknowledgement of Sources

 

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation or an argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also draw the editor's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

 

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

 

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. This situation also applies to arbitrators who do not accept the review invitation. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript and this situation should immediately inform the relevant editor.

 

 

5. Copyright and Access

 

All articles published in the Me.dok journal constitute the intelectual propriety of the Author(s).

Me.dok appears both in print and online, four times a year.

 

6. Archiving

 

Presently Me.dok archives provide online access to all the previous issues published.

https://www.medok.ro/en/me-dok-archivum

 

If the journal shall not be published any more, the editorial board ensures the electronic backup and preservation of acces to the journal’s content in  the future.

Submission guidelines

The authors are kindly requested to observe the following editing requirements:

  • please send the text as a .doc, .docx or .rtf file
  • articles (except the abstracts and keywords) should not exceed 20.000 characters
  • the articles should be headed by the title and the name of the author
  • the title should be followed by a list of keywords divided by SEMICOLONS
  • please include a short introduction of the author: professional title, affiliation, the time and place of the lecture (if it was delivered before at an academic event), and contact details (email).
  • please use automatically numbered endnotes, and include a bibliography and attachments (if any) at the end of the text
  • book titles and journal titles in the main text should be emphasised with italics
  • please use inverted commas of the type: “ ”

 

Bibliographic references:

  • In case of multiple authors, use the name of the first author and abbreviate the rest with et alii; in case of volumes of studies, include the editor’s name with the abbreviation ed.
  • In case of online sources, please include the access date as well.

 

Bibliography:

  • Please use the Harvard system (in which case it is not necessary to repeat the entire reference in each note). Please avoid the use of small capitals or italics for the name of the author
  • In case of foreign authors (non-Hungarian), please use the last name, first name order.
  • If you use several works of an author published in the same year, differentiate it by small letters added to the date of publication both in the notes and bibliography.

 

Guidelines for external peer-reviewers / ME.DOK (Media-History-Communication)

 

 

Please consider the following criteria when writing you review:

 

1. Originality

 

Does the study present the results of original research? Does this article make a fresh contribution to the area of study, or does it reiterate existing knowledge?

 

2. Context

Does the author place the material in the context of up to date, relevant research in the area discussed in the article? Are the claims of the paper properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

 

3. Focus

Does the article have a clear focus?

Is the material ordered in a structured and focused manner?

 

4. Sources

Has the author made use of appropriate primary and secondary sources, or has s/he omitted key ones?

Has the author used the sources in a manner consistent with her/his argument?

Does the research meet all applicable standards of ethics and research integrity?

 

5. Argument and style

Has the author produced a clear argument in a clear style? Do the arguments and analysis support the claims?

 

Please end your review by stating whether or not you recommend publishing the paper (with or without revisions).

 

Confidentiality

The external peer-review process is strictly confidential and should be treated as such by reviewers. Reviewers must not take any confidential information they have gained in the peer-review process and use it before the paper is published.

 

Competing interests

When submitting your review, please indicate whether you have any competing interest.

 

Peer review

The articles sent to the ME.dok review are subjected to an evaluation process regarding their scientific level and quality. Our peer review process follows the steps above:

  • The scientific papers that are transmitted to our contact address (kmki.kolozsvar[at]gmail.com) are analyzed by our editorial staff in order to establish if they comply with the general thematic of our journal (media history, media and communication theories, media and culture issues, and similar themes), if they meet the ME.dok’s editorial policy and requirements, and respect the rules enounced in the “Submission guidelines” menu of the medok.ro homepage.
  • If the article respects the basic references described in the precedent phrase, it is received by an editorial and scientific advisory and critic board. Every paper is double-blind peer reviewed, and this process may last between two and three months.
  • The ME.dok’s editorial team communicates to the autor(s) the remarks and/or the publication conditions specified by our experts and by the editors, together with the deadline of the suggested modifications.