Review Policy

The International Journal of Journalism and Mass Communication (IJJMC) follows a rigorous and transparent peer-review system to ensure the publication of high-quality scholarly research in journalism, media, and communication studies. The journal adopts internationally accepted ethical and editorial standards to maintain integrity, originality, and academic excellence. All manuscripts submitted to IJJMC undergo a three-step review process, including preliminary screening, plagiarism assessment, and expert peer review.

Peer Review Process

1. Preliminary Screening

All submitted manuscripts are initially screened by the IJJMC Editorial Office to ensure compliance with the journal’s submission guidelines.

The preliminary screening includes evaluation of:

  • Relevance to the scope of the journal

  • Manuscript structure and formatting

  • Language quality

  • Completeness of submission

  • Reference style compliance

Manuscripts that do not comply with submission guidelines will be returned to the authors for correction before further processing.

2. Plagiarism and Similarity Check

Manuscripts that pass the preliminary screening are subjected to plagiarism detection using iThenticate or Turnitin software through Crossref Similarity Check.

The plagiarism detection system generates a similarity index, which measures textual overlap with previously published materials.

Similarity Threshold

  • Manuscripts with similarity index above 20% will be returned to the authors without peer review for revision.

  • Manuscripts with similarity index between 1–10% will be evaluated in accordance with COPE guidelines on text recycling.

  • Manuscripts meeting acceptable similarity standards will proceed to peer review.

The similarity index includes word-by-word overlap and is used as an editorial decision-making tool. Proper citation does not automatically justify excessive textual similarity.

3. Selection of Reviewers

IJJMC selects qualified subject experts to review submitted manuscripts.

Authors are required to suggest three potential reviewers at the time of submission. However, the journal is not obligated to invite the suggested reviewers.

Potential reviewers are contacted by the Editorial Office to confirm:

  • Willingness to review the manuscript

  • Availability within the review timeline

  • Absence of conflict of interest

The invitation email includes:

  • Manuscript title

  • Abstract

  • Author details

Reviewers who confirm availability and declare no conflict of interest receive a formal invitation and access to the manuscript.

4. Peer Review Procedure

IJJMC follows a double-blind peer review system in which:

  • Reviewers remain anonymous to authors.

  • Authors remain anonymous to reviewers.

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript

  • Provide an objective and unbiased evaluation

  • Declare conflicts of interest

  • Submit review reports within the specified timeline

Review Criteria

A. Criteria for Original Research Articles

Reviewers evaluate original research manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Language clarity and need for editing

  • Relevance and clarity of the abstract

  • Adequacy of introduction and literature review

  • Rationale and research objectives

  • Ethical approval and informed consent where applicable

  • Adequacy of research design and methodology

  • Clarity of data collection procedures

  • Appropriateness of analytical methods

  • Validity of statistical methods where applicable

  • Quality of discussion in relation to existing literature

  • Significance of findings

  • Clarity of conclusions

  • Declaration of conflict of interest

B. Criteria for Review Articles

Review articles are evaluated on the basis of:

  • Language clarity and presentation

  • Relevance and clarity of abstract

  • Comprehensive literature coverage

  • Critical analysis of existing research

  • Conceptual clarity

  • Contribution to the field

  • Suggestions for future research or solutions where relevant

  • Declaration of conflict of interest

Editorial Decision

Based on reviewers’ comments, the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revision

  • Minor revision

  • Major revision and resubmission

  • Reject

The corresponding author will be notified of the editorial decision.

Revision and Resubmission

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts must submit:

  • A revised manuscript

  • A detailed response to reviewer comments

Revised manuscripts will be evaluated by:

  • Original reviewers, or

  • Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board

The evaluation will determine whether reviewer comments have been adequately addressed.

If revisions are satisfactory, the manuscript will be accepted.

If additional clarification is required, the manuscript may be returned for further revision.

If rejected after review, the decision is final and no further appeal will be considered.

Publication and Archiving

Accepted manuscripts will be published online after final editorial processing.

Each published article will:

  • Be assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • Be registered with Crossref

  • Be permanently archived

  • Be submitted to abstracting and indexing databases