PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The Journal of Communication Research (JCR) follows a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality, validity, and scholarly integrity of the research published. The process is designed to uphold high academic standards, promote objective evaluation, and provide constructive feedback to authors. Below is an overview of the peer review process:

1. Submission and Initial Assessment

  • Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system. Upon receipt, the editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine the manuscript's alignment with the journal's scope and academic standards.
  • The manuscript is screened for plagiarism using Turnitin. If significant similarities with other works are found, the manuscript may be returned to the author for revision or rejected.
  • If the manuscript passes the initial assessment, it is assigned to one of the journal’s editors for further evaluation.

2. Assignment to Reviewers

  • The editor selects two or more independent experts in the field of communication research to review the manuscript. These experts are typically selected based on their expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.
  • JCR uses a double-blind peer review process. This means that both the identities of the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential to ensure impartial evaluation and to prevent any bias or conflict of interest.
  • Reviewers are invited via email to evaluate the manuscript. They are provided with guidelines for the review process and are expected to complete their evaluation within a specified time frame (typically 2-3 weeks).

3. Reviewer Evaluation

  • Reviewers assess the manuscript on several key criteria, including:
    • The importance of the research question and its contribution to the field of communication.
    • The soundness of the research design, methods, and data analysis.
    • The clarity of writing, logical flow, and organization of the manuscript.
    • The completeness and relevance of the literature review and citations.
    • The contribution of the findings to existing knowledge and potential implications.
  • Reviewers must provide objective feedback based on the scientific merit of the manuscript, avoiding personal or discriminatory comments.

4. Review Outcome

  • After reviewing the manuscript, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:
    • Accept: The manuscript is deemed suitable for publication without significant revisions.
    • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor revisions, such as clarifying certain points or addressing small technical issues.
    • Major Revisions: The manuscript needs substantial revisions, such as reworking the methodology or revising significant sections of the analysis or literature review.
    • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication due to serious flaws in the research design, analysis, or other significant issues.

5. Decision and Feedback

  • Based on the reviewers' feedback, the editor makes a final decision regarding the manuscript. The decision will be one of the following:
    • Accepted: The manuscript is accepted for publication with no or minor revisions.
    • Revisions Required: The manuscript requires revisions as per reviewers' comments. Authors are expected to address the reviewers' suggestions and submit a revised version within a specified time frame (typically 4-6 weeks).
    • Rejected: If the manuscript is deemed unsuitable for publication, authors will be notified, and they may choose to submit to another journal.
  • Authors are provided with detailed feedback from the reviewers and the editor. The feedback includes suggestions for improving the manuscript, which authors are expected to consider when revising their work.

6. Revision and Final Decision

  • Revised Submission: If revisions are requested, authors must resubmit the revised manuscript along with a response letter that addresses each of the reviewers' comments and explains how the revisions were made.
  • Second Round of Review: In some cases, the revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation to ensure the revisions have addressed the issues raised.
  • Final Acceptance: Once the manuscript has passed the review process and meets the journal’s standards, the editor will issue a final acceptance for publication.

7. Publication

  • After acceptance, the manuscript undergoes a final copyediting process to ensure adherence to the journal’s style and formatting guidelines.
  • Accepted articles may be published online before the print issue, allowing for early access to readers.