1. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript based on the following aspects:

Relevance to the Journal’s Scope: Ensure the manuscript falls within the journal’s areas of interest, such as journalism practices, mass communication, media studies, digital media, communication theory, etc.

Originality and Novelty: Assess whether the manuscript presents original research or novel perspectives. Ensure that it does not duplicate prior published work or overly rely on previous studies.

Clarity and Structure: The paper should be well-organized and clearly written, with a logical flow of ideas. Reviewers should check for coherence, readability, and correct use of language and grammar.

Methodology: Evaluate whether the research methodology is sound and appropriate for the research question. This includes reviewing the design, data collection, analysis techniques, and their alignment with the research objectives.

Theoretical Framework: Ensure that the manuscript clearly presents a theoretical or conceptual framework, if applicable. The use of established theories or models in communication, media studies, or journalism should be evident.

Data and Analysis: Scrutinize the quality of data analysis, including the presentation of quantitative or qualitative data. Review whether the analysis is robust and the results are clearly supported by the data.

Contribution to the Field: Assess the significance of the manuscript’s contribution to journalism and mass communication scholarship. Does the manuscript offer new insights, address gaps in existing literature, or contribute to ongoing debates in the field?

References and Citations: Check that the references are current, relevant, and formatted according to the journal’s citation style. Ensure the paper appropriately acknowledges prior work.

Ethical Considerations: Ensure the research adheres to ethical standards, including participant consent (for studies involving human subjects), transparency in data collection, and avoidance of plagiarism.

2. Review Process

Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and associated materials as confidential. They should not share the content of the manuscript with others or use it for personal gain.

Impartiality and Objectivity: Reviewers should provide an unbiased assessment of the manuscript based on its academic merit, not personal opinions or interests. Conflicts of interest should be disclosed prior to agreeing to review.

Constructive Feedback: Reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed and constructive feedback, highlighting both strengths and areas for improvement. Suggestions should be specific and backed by evidence or examples from the manuscript.

Timeliness: Reviewers should aim to complete their review in a timely manner, typically within 2-3 weeks, unless otherwise agreed upon. Delayed reviews can slow down the publication process.

3. Review Format

The typical structure for a reviewer’s feedback includes:

Overall Recommendation: A clear recommendation regarding the manuscript’s acceptance. This can be:

• Accept without revisions
• Minor revisions
• Major revisions
• Reject

Summary of the Manuscript: A brief summary of the manuscript to demonstrate that the reviewer has understood the main arguments and contributions.

Strengths: Specific strengths of the paper, such as the novelty of the topic, quality of the research, and clarity of the arguments.

Weaknesses and Suggestions for Improvement: Detailed feedback on areas where the paper could be improved. This may include suggestions for improving clarity, structure, methodology, or analysis, as well as highlighting any errors or inconsistencies.

Specific Comments: Address specific issues or questions in the manuscript, such as unclear sections, misinterpretation of previous studies, or methodological flaws.

4. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should be mindful of the following ethical principles:

Avoiding Bias: Ensure that personal biases, prejudices, or conflicts of interest do not influence the review process. Any potential conflicts (e.g., personal relationships with the authors, financial interests) should be disclosed to the journal editor.

Respect for Authors: Reviewers should provide constructive feedback in a respectful and professional manner. Negative comments should be framed in a way that is helpful for the authors to improve their manuscript.

Plagiarism Check: If there is any suspicion that the manuscript may involve plagiarism or unethical research practices, reviewers should report it to the editor immediately.

5. Final Decision

After completing the review, reviewers typically provide one of the following recommendations to the editor:

Accept the Manuscript: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no changes or only minor changes.

Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires small changes to improve clarity, methodology, or overall quality.

Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant revisions, but with the potential to be accepted after improvements.

Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form and does not merit further review.

6. Confidentiality and Discretion

Confidentiality: All manuscripts under review are considered confidential and must not be disclosed to third parties. Reviewers should refrain from discussing the manuscript outside of the review process.

Discretion: If a reviewer feels unable to provide an impartial review, they should decline the invitation and inform the journal editor.