Reviewer Guideline
All submitted papers are subject to a strict double-blind peer-review process by at least two reviewers that are experts in the paper. The factors that are considered in the review are as follows:
- Relevance: Is this paper relevant to the topics of this journal?
- Soundness: Is this paper technically sound and complete?
- Support: Are the claims supported by experimental/theoretical results?
- Significance: Is the paper interesting for other media and communication researchers?
- Originality: Are the results/ideas novel and previously unknown?
- Readability: Is the paper well-organized and easy to understand?
- Language: Is the paper written in correct English and style?
Of these, the main factors considered are significance and originality.
Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists Editor-in-Chief/Editor and the Editorial Board in making editorial decisions. The editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
All reviewers perform work for the journal on a volunteer basis. Peer review assists Editor-in-Chief/Editor and the Editorial Board in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communications with the author, may also assist the author in improving the paper.
The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions but without re-review, revision and resubmit, or rejection. Articles that are often rejected include those that are poorly written or organized or are written in poor English. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed. Articles may be rejected without review if the Editor-in-Chief/Editor considers the article unsuitable for publication.
Promptness: If a reviewer feels that the received manuscript does not suit their speciality field and the reviewing process will suffer, he needs to notify the editor.
All reviews should be delivered to the editorial staff in due time. On a regular basis, the review of an article should not take more than one month from the submission of the manuscript to the reviewer to the transmission of the completed review form to the Journal editorial board.
Confidentiality: Received manuscripts are confidential documents, and reviewers are not allowed to reveal information or discuss the articles besides the editor and other persons authorized by the editor. Any suspected conflicts of interest need to be reported.
The reviewing process needs to be objective, reviewers should argue their statements, and personal criticism is not permitted.
The reviewers must use the editor’s review form and the submitted article. By consenting to do a review, the reviewers accept that their names will be published in the list of former reviewers of the journal.
The editorial staff can resubmit a manuscript to additional reviewers if they consider the answer from previous reviewers insufficient, inappropriate, or not timely.
Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should attempt to identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. The relevant citation should accompany any statement that a result or argument has been previously reported. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper they have personal knowledge of.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be confidential and not used for personal advantage. 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 papers.
