Peer Review Process

Some policies in the review of Indonesian Journal of Communication Science:

  1. The reviewers will review the submitted article that follow the guidelines and template of the journal provided
  2. The review process in this journal employs a double-blind peer-review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa.
  3. In the review process, the article will be reviewed by at least two reviewers to ensure the quality of the article.
  4. In the review process, the reviewers ensure the quality of the articles of its title, abstract, discussion and conclusion. Besides, the reviewers also address the novelty and its contribution to the scientific discussion and verify the plagiarism and ethics of publication.
  5. The reviewer also provide feedback on whether the article is accepted, rejected or need minor or major revision.

Reviewers are required to recommend a particular course of action, but should bear in mind that the other reviewers of a particular manuscript may have different technical expertise and/or views, and the editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information upon which a decision should be based, setting out the arguments for and against publication.

Editorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes or numerical rank assessments, and we do not always follow the majority recommendation. We try to evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors, and may also consider other information not available to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and to the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them we must weigh the claims of each manuscript against the many others also under consideration.

We may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. We therefore ask that reviewers should be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. We are very aware, however, that reviewers are usually reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes, so we try to keep consultation to the minimum as we judge necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors.