This overview provides a summary of the editorial process for peer-reviewed articles submitted to JCMS. You can also consult an abbreviated JCMS Editorial Process Graphic.

Please note that elements of this process differ for other types of JCMS content, such as In Focus dossiers, book reviews, Spotlight features, and Teaching Media essays. If you are working on content other than a full-length, peer-reviewed article and have questions about the editorial process, please contact the editor who is overseeing your writing and/or the masthead member responsible for the relevant section. A list of masthead members can be found on the About page for the JCMS official website.

Submission

After authoring an article and deciding that JCMS is a potential home for their article, the author should:

• format the manuscript according to the Style guide;
• submit the manuscript through a submission form on Airtable; and
• receive an automated email confirming submission.

To be considered for review, manuscripts should be at least 8,000 words long and no longer than 10,000 words. This word count includes end notes but does not include abstract. Please note that this word count reflects a change in the word limit of JCMS articles, which went into effect on December 1, 2022. Articles submitted prior to December 1, 2022 will still be held to the original 12,000-word limit for revisions and developmental editing.

Desk review

Upon submission, a new manuscript is assigned to the Assistant Editors, who check to see if the article stated submission guidelines, falls within the required word-count range, and aligns with the journal’s goals of offering original, timely interventions into media studies while remaining accessible for a wide media studies audience. Submissions that pass an initial round of desk review are passed to a journal Editor, who verifies that a submission is ready and appropriate for peer review. Note that desk review is not anonymous.

If the submission meets these standards, the Assistant Editors send it to an Editor who will initiate the process of peer review If the submission does not meet these standards, it is declined. Once desk review is complete, authors receive an email from AirTable notifying them whether their article will or will not move into peer review. Authors can expect to hear about the results of desk review within roughly two weeks of submission.

More detailed information about the Desk Review process and criteria is available here.

Peer review

A submission that is passed through desk review moves on to the peer review stage. From this point, the submission is anonymized; the Editor does not know who the author of the submission is when they select peer reviewers, and reviewers do not know the author of the submission. To begin, an Editor reads the submission with the goal of drawing up a list of potential peer reviewers.

Peer reviewers may be drawn from the Editorial Board but may also include any scholars in the field of cinema and media studies. If the Editor desires or requires assistance locating appropriate peer reviewers for the submission, they may consult members of the masthead and members of the editorial board. Members of the masthead may see the entirety of a submission at this stage (anonymized) to aid in nominating peer reviewers; members of the Editorial Board will typically see only the title and abstract. In rare circumstances, the Editor may reach out to the leadership of a relevant SCMS SIG for assistance in finding appropriate reviewers; SIG representatives will see only the title and abstract.

The list of potential peer reviewers will normally consist of two top choices and no fewer than two alternates. The list of peer reviewers selected by the Editor will go to the Managing Editor to determine if there are potential institutional or other objective conflicts of interest. If there are, these names will be struck off the list. If more than one name is struck at this point, the Editor (possibly in consultation with the masthead and the editorial board) may nominate an additional reviewer.

Once the list of reviewers has been settled, the two preferred peer reviewers are contacted by the Editor. The reviewers will receive the submission’s title and abstract. Peer review is double-anonymized, meaning that neither the peer reviewer nor author will know one another's identity. If one or both of the preferred reviewers decline, alternates are contacted. If the list of reviewers is exhausted, the Editor (again, with the help of the masthead and editorial board) nominates, checks for a conflict of interest with the help of the Managing Editor, and contacts additional reviewers, until two reviewers accept the request to review.

Once a Reviewer accepts the charge, they receive the following from the Journal:

• an anonymized copy of the article, including title and abstract, but with no identifying details of the author
• detailed Information for peer reviewers on assessing submissions and submitting review
• firm guidance on deadlines

Two reviews will be conducted simultaneously. Reviewers are generally asked to return their review within one month of agreeing to the request, though this timeline may be negotiated within reason.

In addition to submitting detailed written feedback, the reviewers will be asked to assess a submission in regards to its:

• Overall quality
• Salience to specialists
• Interest to the broader field
• Quality of research and method
• Significance of claim, diversity of ideas, and originality of research, and
• Quality of writing.

Then, reviewers will be asked to select one of three recommendations: accept (with possible suggested revisions), revise and resubmit, reject. These three categories can be understood as translating to the following recommendations by reviewers:

1. Accept: I recommend publication. I offer some suggestions for revision, but adoption of these should be left to the discretion of the author. I do not need to review the revised manuscript.
2. Revise and Resubmit: I recommend publication only if the revisions suggested in my report are satisfactorily made. I am willing provisionally willing to review the revised manuscript, unless I note otherwise.
3. Reject: I do not recommend publication.

At the conclusion of the review, reviewers will be asked to indicate if they are unwilling to review a revision, and whether they would like their name to be disclosed to the author.

The Managing Editor communicates with reviewers regarding the due date for reviews, as well as with authors should there be any delays. Once both reviews for an article are completed and submitted, the submission moves into the decision stage.

Decision (following initial peer review)

With the reviews in hand, the Editor who is overseeing the peer review process, in consultation with the masthead, renders a decision shaped by the recommendations of the peer reviewers. While many cases will be clear based on the peer reviews, some decisions will require editorial judgment. JCMS considers peer reviews to be recommendations but does not take their decisions as binding. At this stage, the journal can render one of three decisions, which translate as follows:

1. Accept: The journal commits to publishing a version of the submission. The reviewers and/or editors may have suggestions for additional revisions for the author to take into consideration before submitting a finalized manuscript.
2. Revise and Resubmit: The journal agrees to consider a revision of the submission and is offering guidance on how to revise. (More on the revision process below.)
3. Reject: The journal will not publish the submission but offers feedback.

If the reviewers and the journal’s relevant masthead members agree in their assessment of the submission, one of these three decisions will be rendered and communicated to the author.

However, if the reviewers and/or journal editors disagree, several things can happen:

• If there is stark disagreement (e.g. one reviewer recommends acceptance, one reviewer recommends rejection), the submission is sent out to a third reviewer. This reviewer may be drawn from the original list of reviewers or may be nominated specifically by the Editor to perform the third review.
• If there is a disagreement between reviewers that is smaller in terms of their assessment of the submission’s overall quality, normally the “less enthusiastic” recommendation holds sway: accept + revise = revise; revise + reject = reject. (Note that this decision-making process works slightly differently for articles that are participating in the Publishing Initiative; for more information, please contact the Associate Editors of Outreach and Equity at [email protected].) In these cases, the Editor, in consultation with the masthead, makes the final determination based on the reviewers’ reports and their own assessment of the submission’s quality.

Once a decision has been made following this initial round of peer review, the submission’s author is identified to the Editor; the remainder of the editorial process will no longer be fully anonymous. (Reviewers, however, only learn the identity of the author if and when the submission is published.) The author will be contacted by the Editor or Associate Editors, with a summary of the decision, any editorial remarks, and anonymized copies of the reader reports.

If the submission is accepted following this initial round of peer review, it moves directly to the Acceptance stage described below. If the submission receives a decision of “revise and resubmit,” it moves into the Revision stage described below. If the submission is rejected, the Journal declines the submission and notifies the author.

Revise and resubmit

An Associate Editor will take over management of an article’s revise and resubmit process. First, the assigned Associate Editor will communicate next steps for articles that receive a revise and resubmit decision, as described above:

• Upon receipt of the readers' reports from the Associate Editor, the author will write a short (no more than one page) response to the reviews with a plan for revision.
• This plan should respond to any concerns expressed by the readers and explain how the revised manuscript will address them. If there are suggested revisions that the author disagrees with, the author’s revision plan should explain this.

This should normally be returned to the assigned Associate Editor within one week of receipt of the readers' reports. The Associate Editor will review and approve the revision plan to ensure that the planned revision is likely to align with reviewers’ assessments and JCMS’s goals. In rare cases, a revision plan may not be approved by the Associate Editor, leading to a process of negotiation. If the author refuses to revise in a way that meets the goals of the journal, the Associate Editor will confer with the Editor(s) and masthead team, and the article may ultimately be rejected at this stage.

More commonly, the revision plan is approved. When the plan is approved, the Associate Editor will provide a link to a specific submission form for revise and resubmit. At the time of resubmission, the author will include an updated outline of revisions made to the manuscript based on this plan.

When a revise and resubmit submission is resubmitted via the provided link, the Associate Editor assigned to the resubmission will oversee the process of sending it back out to peer reviewers. At this stage, there is not normally a need to create a new list of potential reviewers as every effort will be made to send the manuscript back to the original peer reviewer(s) who recommended the revisions. If an original peer reviewer is unavailable, the Editor may create a list of potential new readers. This second round of peer review remains double-anonymous. All second-round peer reviewers will receive, along with the anonymous submission materials, the first-round readers' reports and the author's summary of revisions. As with first-round reviews, reviewers will be given approximately one month to return their review.

While reviewers of a revised submission are asked to complete many of the same steps as in the first round of review, they are given only two options for recommended decisions: Accept (with or without suggested revisions) or Reject. In cases in which reviewers’ recommendations differ (accept and reject), a third reviewer will be contacted to break the tie.

When two reviews are received, or when a tie has been broken, the submission will enter the decision stage. If it is accepted, the Editor will contact the author to communicate the decision, share reviewer comments and suggested revisions, and indicate next steps (as seen in the “Acceptance” section below). If it is rejected, the Editor will contact the author and share reviewer comments (again, as described above).

If a decision is not obvious, the Editor may strike a committee to deliberate on the decision. To strike a committee, the Editor selects three members from either the editors on the JCMS masthead with PhDs, or members of the Editorial Board. The Editor may be a member of this committee, but does not have to be. The committee reads the submission and the reviewer reports, and renders a decision (accept or reject). They may provide a written justification for their decision, but this is not necessary. If the committee cannot reach a decision, the Editor renders a decision. Once a decision is rendered, the Editor notifies the author and sends the reviewer reports and committee report (if applicable).

JCMS offers only one round of revise and resubmit.

Acceptance

If an article is accepted, either following the initial round of peer review or following the peer review of a revised submission in the revise and resubmit process, the Editor or Associate Editor communicates this to the author and sends them the reader reports. At this time, the author will have the opportunity to create an updated final manuscript. This allows the author to make additional revisions based on the reviewers’ feedback before the submission moves into the publication queue. Final article manuscripts must remain within the journal’s required word range. Normally the deadline for submitting a final manuscript will be three months from the communication of the decision.

Final manuscripts that meet the outlined requirements will move into the “After Acceptance” stages described below.

After acceptance

After an author has received notification from the journal that their article has officially been accepted, there are still a number of steps the author and editorial team complete before the article is published. These steps begin with a decision email from the Editor, which will outline the following processes.

Returning the publication agreement

In the email notification of acceptance, the author will be provided a link to the publication agreement between the author, JCMS, and Michigan Publishing. This agreement should be returned to the Managing Editor ([email protected]), optimally within one week of acceptance, in order to move forward with publication.

Choosing a publication queue

In the email notification of acceptance, the Editor will ask the author to indicate their preference for either the print issue queue (XX.1-XX.4) or the online, open access Fifth Issue (XX.5) queue. Information about the Fifth Issue, including how it operates and what factors an author should consider in deciding whether to choose the Fifth Issue vs. a print issue, can be found on the Fifth Issue FAQ. The choice of publication queue should be communicated to the Managing Editor ([email protected]), either with return of the publication agreement or with return of the “final manuscript.”

Submitting a "final manuscript"

As described above, authors may receive suggestions for optional revisions following acceptance. Whether or not this is the case, they will be asked to prepare and submit a “final manuscript” before their article can enter the formal queue for publication. This final manuscript is the version of their article that will later enter production. Authors will not be able to make large-scale revisions following the submission of their final manuscript.

Authors typically have approximately three months from the time their submission has been accepted to complete and submit their final manuscripts. Final manuscripts will be collected via email by the Managing Editor ([email protected]). When a final manuscript is received, the Managing Editor will review the material for its preparedness for publication. Final manuscripts that are not ready for publication will be sent back to the author for corrections. This process may increase the time to publication, so it is important to correctly prepare articles for publication before submitting the final manuscript.

Final manuscripts may be returned to authors for corrections for the following reasons, among others:

• The final manuscript exceeds the journal’s maximum word count for peer-reviewed articles.
• The final manuscript does not conform to the journal’s Style guide. Please pay particular attention to citation style. All citations should be included as numbered endnotes and should be formatted correctly using the conventions outlined in the Chicago Manual of Style.
• Required information is missing from the manuscript. This may include but is not limited to an abstract, keywords, or complete, correctly formatted text related to figures.
• Problems with figures, such as issues with file type or size or concerns about permissions, need to be addressed before proceeding to publication.

Once an author has submitted their final manuscript and the final manuscript has been approved by the Managing Editor, the article enters either the print or Fifth Issue queue for publication and is scheduled for a particular issue of the journal. The Managing Editor will notify the author via email of the issue in which their article is scheduled to appear . Because of the length of the publication queue, there is currently a period of roughly 18 months between article acceptance and publication. This is true for articles scheduled to appear in both the print issues and the rolling online Fifth Issue.

Developmental edits

Approximately nine months prior to publication, JCMS will begin working directly with the “final manuscript” that the author has submitted for publication. The first stage of this work involves developmental editing, intended to refine and polish articles to ensure their clarity and enhance their impact. This is offered in a spirit of collaboration; beyond formatting issues, authors may integrate or reject developmental editing at their discretion.

Developmental editing on each article is done by an Editors, an Associate Editor, and the Managing Editor. An Assistant Editor or Editorial Intern may assist in some cases. This editorial team reads each piece closely, offering feedback regarding:

• Alignment with JCMS/Chicago Manual of Style guidelines.
• The content and format of citations or notes.
• Grammatical issues, word choice, or other mechanical issues that may impact clarity.
• Possible areas of improvement regarding organization or argumentation.

Developmental edits are returned to authors by the Managing Editor, and authors usually receive one month to review and revise according to these edits. The manuscript submitted after developmental editing becomes the new, fully finalized manuscript and proceeds in the publication process.

Copy edits

Once Michigan Publishing receives the final manuscript, they send it to their Copy Editor. The Copy Editor takes one month to make corrections. One week later, Michigan Publishing sends copy edited articles to authors for review. Authors then have two weeks for review. After their review is complete, they return their manuscripts directly to Michigan Publishing. Michigan Publishing then begins work preparing the typeset PDF draft of the article.

Proofreading

Once the PDF proof of the article is ready, Michigan Publishing sends it to the Copy Editor, JCMS Production Editor, Assistant Production Editor, and the author for proofreading. Authors, editors, and the Copy Editor have one week to return proofread PDFs with corrections to Michigan Publishing.

At this stage, authors may also be contacted by JCMS Assistant Editors regarding plans for promoting their forthcoming articles via social media.

Publication

An email will be sent out to JCMS subscribers when a new issue of the journal has been published. This email will include a table of contents listing each article and author.

Authors whose work is published in a print issue of the journal receive a complimentary copy of their issue in the mail. During the post-acceptance process, the Managing Editor will request authors’ mailing addresses. If you do not receive a print copy of the issue in which your article appears, please feel free to contact [email protected].

We encourage authors to share the exciting news of their publication widely! Please consider tagging @JCMSjournal and @SCMStudies if you are posting on Twitter.