Peer Review Process

Ettisal : Journal of Communication

Peer review is a core component of scholarly publishing in Ettisal : Journal of Communication, ensuring that every accepted manuscript meets high standards of academic rigor, methodological soundness, and relevance to the field of communication studies—particularly within its sociocultural, media, and contemporary discourse contexts. Reviewers contribute essential expertise by evaluating theoretical accuracy, methodological clarity, the validity of arguments, and the contribution of the work to ongoing scholarly conversations. Because communication studies encompass diverse subfields—including media analysis, digital culture, interpersonal communication, and public discourse—reviewers’ assessments guide editorial decisions and help authors refine their work through constructive scholarly exchange.

The journal employs a double-blind peer review system, in which neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities. This ensures impartiality and preserves academic integrity throughout the evaluation process.

1. Editorial Office Assessment

Every submission first undergoes an initial evaluation by the editorial team. Editors verify whether the manuscript aligns with the journal’s aims and scope, adheres to the Author Guidelines, follows ethical standards, and meets minimum scholarly quality. The editorial team assesses clarity of writing, structural completeness, and the presence of major methodological or conceptual issues.
Manuscripts that pass this stage are checked using Turnitin to identify potential plagiarism. Submissions that lack originality, relevance, or formal compliance may be rejected before peer review.

2. Selection and Invitation of Reviewers

The handling editor invites reviewers who possess expertise appropriate to the submitted manuscript’s topic and who have no conflicts of interest. Reviewers are selected based on their academic credentials, research relevance, and capacity to provide an impartial evaluation.
The manuscript is sent to reviewers anonymously, following the journal’s double-blind policy.

3. Reviewer Response

Invited reviewers consider the suitability of the assignment based on their expertise, availability, and potential conflicts of interest. Those unable to participate may recommend alternative qualified reviewers. All invited reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality.

4. Review Process

Reviewers read the manuscript carefully—often multiple times—to develop a thorough, balanced, and evidence-based evaluation. They assess:

a) originality and scholarly contribution,

b) accuracy and adequacy of sources,

c) methodological soundness,

d) clarity and coherence of arguments,

e) relevance to the field of communication studies, and

f) alignment with ethical and academic standards.

Reviewers provide a detailed, constructive report identifying strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement. They offer a recommendation: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.

5. Editorial Evaluation of Reviews

The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor review all reports to make a final decision. When reviewer opinions conflict significantly, an additional expert may be consulted. Editors synthesize the feedback to ensure fairness, academic rigor, and consistency in decision-making.

6. Communication of Decision

Authors receive a decision letter along with anonymized reviewer comments. These comments are intended to guide revisions and strengthen the manuscript. Reviewers are also informed of the outcome and may be invited to reassess revised manuscripts when needed.

7. Final Steps

If the manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to copy-editing and production. If revisions are required, authors must address the reviewers’ and editors’ comments thoroughly before resubmission.
Rejected manuscripts receive constructive feedback to assist authors in improving their work for future submissions—whether to this journal or elsewhere.