Editorial Process Guideline

The Journal of Communications, Media and Society (JOSMAS) maintains a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer-review system to ensure that all published articles meet the highest standards of academic and scientific quality.

The journal follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers for the conduct and reporting of scholarly work. All submitted manuscripts undergo initial editorial screening, followed by double-blind peer review by independent experts in the relevant field.

Overview of Editorial Process

JOCMAS follows a structured editorial review process:

  1. Submission received
  2. Initial editorial assessment
  3. Double-blind peer review by at least two experts
  4. Decision based on reviewer reports
  5. Revision cycle(s) as required
  6. Final acceptance or rejection

Initial Editorial Screening

  • All manuscripts are submitted through the journal’s online Manuscript Tracking System.
  • Upon receipt, each submission is screened by the Editorial Office for completeness, format compliance, scope relevance, and plagiarism (using iThenticate).
  • The Editor-in-Chief reviews the manuscript to assess:
    • Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope.
    • Originality, scientific merit, and ethical compliance.
    • Suitability for peer review.

Manuscripts deemed out of scope, of insufficient quality, or ethically noncompliant are rejected at this stage without external review (desk rejection).

Assignment to Section Editor

If the manuscript passes initial screening, it is assigned to a Section Editor (a member of the Editorial Board) with relevant subject expertise and no conflict of interest.
The Section Editor oversees the peer review process, selects appropriate reviewers, and makes an editorial recommendation.

Reviewer Selection

  • Each submission is reviewed by at least two external, independent reviewers who possess expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.
  • Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest before accepting the review.
  • The journal maintains an international reviewer pool and uses specialized databases and editorial judgment to select reviewers.

Double-Blind Peer Review

JOCMAS operates a double-blind model, meaning:

  • Reviewers do not know author identities
  • Authors do not know reviewer identities

Manuscripts must be anonymized before review.

Editorial Decision Categories

After receiving all reviewer reports, the Section Editor suggest the decision and Editor-in-Chief makes a decision based on reviewer feedback:

  • Accept: The paper proceeds to technical editing and publication.
  • Minor Revision: Authors are given time to make the requested changes. The editor reviews the revised manuscript to confirm that all comments have been addressed before acceptance.
  • Major Revision: Authors are asked to revise and resubmit the manuscript, addressing all reviewer concerns. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.
  • Reject: The manuscript is declined, and detailed feedback is provided to the authors.

If the majority of reviewers recommend rejection, the manuscript is rejected automatically.

All editorial decisions are final and made solely based on academic merit, scientific accuracy, and ethical integrity.

Revision & Resubmission

Authors must submit a point-by-point response letter explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Revised manuscripts must be submitted within the specified deadline (usually within 4 weeks). Failure to meet the deadline may result in withdrawal of the manuscript.

Reviewer Roles & Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

  • provide objective, scholarly feedback,
  • maintain confidentiality,
  • declare conflicts of interest,
  • avoid using unpublished data for personal advantage.

Reports should be constructive and respectful.