Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Journal of Communication, Sustainability, and Empowerment is committed to ensuring the integrity and quality of the research it publishes. We adhere to a rigorous double-blind peer review process, where both the authors' and reviewers' identities are concealed from each other throughout the review process. This model is implemented to ensure impartiality and objectivity in the assessment of manuscripts.

The peer review process is managed as follows:

Step 1: Initial Manuscript Submission and Screening

Upon submission, the manuscript is first checked by the editorial office to ensure it complies with the journal's policies, including scope, formatting guidelines, and the plagiarism check. Manuscripts that do not meet these initial requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected at this stage.

Step 2: Editorial Assessment (Desk Review)

The manuscript is then assigned to the Editor-in-Chief or a relevant Associate Editor. The editor assesses the manuscript's suitability for the journal, its novelty, significance, and overall quality. At this stage, the editor may decide to reject the manuscript without external review ("desk rejection") if it is deemed outside the journal's scope, of insufficient quality, or lacking in originality.

Step 3: Reviewer Invitation and Assignment

If the manuscript passes the editorial assessment, the editor will invite at least two independent, anonymous expert reviewers in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, publication record, and availability. They must not have any conflicts of interest with the research or the authors.

Step 4: Conducting the Review

Reviewers are given a set timeframe (typically 3-4 weeks) to evaluate the manuscript. They are asked to provide a detailed, constructive, and unbiased review, assessing the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses. This includes evaluating the soundness of the methodology, the clarity of the presentation, the validity of the conclusions, and the originality of the work. Reviewers then make a recommendation to the editor (e.g., Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject).

Step 5: Editorial Decision

The editor collects and synthesizes the reviewers' comments and recommendations. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned editor based on the reviewers' feedback, the manuscript's quality, and its relevance to the journal. The possible decisions are:

Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication as is.

Minor Revisions: The manuscript is accepted after minor revisions are made by the author.

Major Revisions: The manuscript may be accepted after substantial revisions are made. The revised manuscript may be sent for a second round of peer review.

Reject: The manuscript is rejected due to significant flaws, lack of novelty, or being outside the scope of the journal.

Step 6: Communicating the Decision and Revision

The decision, along with the anonymized reviewers' comments, is sent to the corresponding author. If revisions are required, the author is expected to submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments. The editor will assess the revised manuscript to ensure all concerns have been adequately addressed.

Step 7: Final Acceptance and Production

Once the editor is satisfied with the final version of the manuscript, it is formally accepted for publication. The manuscript then proceeds to the copyediting, layout, and proofreading stages before being published online.

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

All reviewers for Journal of Communication, Sustainability, and Empowerment are expected to adhere to the following principles: