Publication Policy

PUBLICATION POLICY

The journal accepts original articles and studies, materials that represent discussion points of view and short scientific communications (in the sections "Analysis", "Media Monitoring", "Discussions"), book reviews, chronicles of scientific forums and news about upcoming or recently past events related to scientific and educational initiatives in the field of media and public communication (in the sections "Reviews" and "Events"), as well as a corpus of transcribed media and advertising texts from electronic media (in the section "Media Corpus") to assist researchers.

SUBMISSION OF TEXT BY AUTHORS

Authors submit their texts via the electronic manuscript submission plugin, available in the journal's main menu. Guidelines on how to work with the plugin can be downloaded after logging in via the active blue button.

Manuscripts should be formatted according to the provided template.

Download the manuscript template

By submitting a manuscript, the author participates in the public exchange of the journal (no contract is required). By submitting an article, the author confirms that he is familiar with the type of journal (open access) and agrees to provide the article for open access on the Internet and in scientometric databases.

Authors are responsible for the reliability of the published results, as well as for personal opinions, assessments and statements expressed.

After submitting their manuscript, authors must monitor messages from the electronic system or from the editor-in-chief and promptly respond to any questions that arise or eliminate problems that are reported to them.

The editorial board of the collection reserves the right not to accept texts that do not comply with the technical and thematic requirements of the scientific publication.

NO PUBLICATION AND PROCESSING FEES

The journal does not charge authors any publication fees or processing fees.

PEER REVIEW POLICY

All articles and studies in the “Analysis”, “Media Monitoring” and “Discussion” sections are subject to double-blind peer review by experts in the relevant field. The Editorial Board carefully selects reviewers to avoid any conflict of interest regarding the study, the authors and/or the sources of funding for the study. At least one of the reviewers must not be from the authors’ institution. Reviewers must not have recently published with any of the authors. If any of these circumstances exist, reviewers must immediately report them to the editor. If any of the reviewers feel unqualified to evaluate the study or believe that they cannot comply with the deadline for submitting the review, they must notify the editor within two days. If the reviewers suspect plagiarism or know that the same text under a different title has been published in another edition, they must notify the editors of the journal.

Before starting the review process, the reviewers should familiarize themselves with the structure and content of the journal, with the instructions provided by the authors. This will help them in evaluating the texts.

Each submitted manuscript is evaluated according to the following criteria:

Significance and novelty of the scientific problem

Originality/innovation of the thesis and the arguments presented;

Originality/novelty of the data presented.

Knowledge of foreign interpretations of the problem and the literature on the topic

Correctness and relevance of the sources in the bibliographic citation and description.

General structure of the article. Clarity and accuracy of the presentation

Logic of the structure and consistency of the presentation;
Justification of the results, conclusions and inferences;
Accuracy and clarity of the statement;
Availability of adequate summaries in Bulgarian and English (according to the requirements of the journal).

Recommendations to the author

Recommendations on the essence of the topic and contributions of the article (if any);
Possible recommendations for additional bibliography (if any);
Additional remarks (if any).

Final opinion on the publication of the article

The purpose of double-blind review is to assist the editor and the editorial board in making decisions related to the printing of the text. The journal does not provide financial remuneration for reviewers.

The manuscript is sent to at least two reviewers, after being anonymized by the author during electronic submission, i.e. any data about the author(s) has been removed. The reviewer card template is also automatically sent to the reviewers. The period in which the reviewer must return his/her reviewer card is 2 weeks, but due to force majeure circumstances it may be reduced or increased.

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers of a manuscript act independently and do not know the identity of the other reviewer.

After receiving the completed reviewer cards by email of the journal

The editors remove the names of the reviewers and send the recommendations to the author(s) of the manuscript to familiarize themselves with the reviewer's assessment. If additional editing is needed, the author is given a period of 1 week to remove the omissions noted by the reviewers and re-submit their text via the electronic attachment for submitting manuscripts or directly to the journal's email. If the reviewer has expressed a desire, the revised text is returned to him/her to express a positive or negative opinion on publishing the final version.

In the event of positive responses from the reviewers, the articles are prepared for publication by the editors, and if changes are necessary, they are coordinated with the authors of the texts. The final decision on publication is made at the editorial meetings.

In the event of negative reviews or non-compliance with the technical requirements or the thematic scope of the journal, the manuscript is returned, with a letter sent to the author stating the reason for the rejection.

In case of different decisions of the two reviewers, the editor may appoint additional reviewers or convene the editorial board to discuss the weight of the arguments "for" and "against".

If there is doubt about the objectivity of the reviews or insufficient argumentation, the editor may appoint additional reviewers.