Peer Review

All History of Media Studies articles undergo vigorous peer review: double-anonymous by default, as well as more open modes at authors’ discretion. Some articles types, like Commentaries and Replies, undergo single-anonymous review by default.

Manuscripts are first reviewed by the co-editors, to assess suitability for the journal.

Authors that pass this initial round of review are consulted about their peer review preferences. The default option is a double-anonymous review by at least two subject experts. Authors may select from other, more open options:

• signed/open review, in which the (two or more) reviewers sign their comments and may continue to consult with authors through the revision process

• community review, in which a draft version is published, with public, signed comments encouraged and solicited

The review type (double-anonymous, signed/open, or community) is indicated in the article’s metadata, and—in the case of the signed option—reviewers are typically named.

For all review types, authors are responsible for considering suggestions and comments in the revision process. Revised manuscripts are typically returned to reviewers.

History of Media Studies is committed to a humane, care-based, and developmental review process, with the goal to improve manuscripts through collegial exchange. See our guidelines for peer review.

Questions? Please contact us.

^RSS

^{Contact: [email protected]}

^{Publisher: mediastudies.press}

^{ISSN: 2637–6091}

^{Github: repository}

^{CC BY-NC 4.0, unless otherwise noted}