Conflict of Interest Policy

  1. Regulatory and Legal Framework

The Journal is strictly committed to the governance standards set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as the technical quality benchmarks of global databases, namely Scopus and Web of Science.

In this context, a conflict of interest is defined as any financial, personal, academic, or institutional consideration that could objectively compromise the integrity of an editorial decision, the fairness of the peer-review process, or the credibility of published findings in the fields of media and digital studies. Although the Journal employs a Double-Blind Peer Review system, proactive disclosure remains a mandatory and critical requirement to guarantee the reliability of the editorial workflow and the integrity of the scholarly record.

  1. Reviewer-Author Conflict of Interest Criteria

It is strictly prohibited to assign a manuscript to a reviewer if any link is established between them and any of the contributing authors. Reviewing obstacles are defined by the following institutional and academic cases:

  • Institutional Affiliation: Belonging to the same university, college, or research center at the time of submission, or having been affiliated with it during the two years preceding the submission.
  • Personal Relationships: The existence of a family relationship or close personal/professional acquaintance that could impair the neutrality of the technical evaluation.
  • Academic Mentorship: Direct academic supervision (Master’s or Ph.D. theses) that has concluded within less than five years from the date of the degree defense.
  • Co-authorship: Collaboration in publishing research papers, books, or funded research projects within the three years preceding the manuscript's submission.
  • Competitive Interests: The existence of direct academic or intellectual rivalry, or the reviewer working on a highly similar research project that grants them an unfair competitive advantage upon viewing the author’s manuscript.
  1. Operational Procedures and Self-Compliance
  • Initial Abstract Screening: Upon receiving an electronic review invitation, the reviewer is designated to inspect the title, abstract, and keywords. If the author’s identity can be deduced or if any of the aforementioned review conflicts are identified, the reviewer must immediately decline the invitation via the journal management system.
  • Abrupt Cessation of Review: If the reviewer discovers the author’s identity while reading the full text (whether through writing style, self-citations, or references), they must immediately cease the review process and notify the editorial department to cancel the assignment.
  • Confidentiality and Data Exploitation: Reviewers are strictly prohibited from utilizing any data, ideas, or scientific methodologies contained in the under-review manuscript for their personal or institutional research prior to the formal publication of the study.

Unofficial or Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest: Mechanisms and Sanctions

The Journal’s operational procedures regarding the detection or reporting of an undisclosed conflict of interest are strictly subject to COPE Flowcharts. Corrective and institutional measures are precisely determined based on the timeline stage at which the violation was discovered, according to the following regulatory pathways:

First: Matrix of Immediate Actions by Stage of Discovery

  1. Active Review Stage (During the Evaluation Process)
  • Immediate Suspension: The peer-review process for the manuscript is temporarily halted.
  • Procedural Disqualification: The assignment of the concerned reviewer is canceled, and their draft evaluation report is entirely purged from the electronic system to eliminate any structured bias on the editorial decision.
  • Rerouting: The manuscript is transferred to a completely independent reviewer via a fresh editorial track.
  1. Post-Acceptance Stage (Pre-Publication and Editorial Typesetting)
  • Processing Freeze: The manuscript’s acceptance decision is suspended immediately, and all formatting, copyediting, and proofreading processes are halted.
  • Editorial Inspection: A member of the editorial board is assigned to audit the previous evaluation reports to verify the integrity and non-bias of the scholarly recommendation.
  • Adjudication: The manuscript is submitted to an independent adjudicator to decisively and neutrally evaluate its scientific merit.
  1. Post-Official Publication Stage (In Current or Archived Volumes)
  • Documentary Investigation: The Journal communicates with both the author and the reviewer to request formal written clarifications within a non-extendable deadline of 14 days.
  • Correction Notice: If the conflict of interest is minor and does not compromise the scientific integrity of the results, a formal Correction notice is published alongside the article, detailing the nature of the non-financial or financial interest.
  • Retraction: If collusion or structural bias that compromised the research's credibility is proven, the work is permanently retracted from the journal archives and international databases. A formal, reasoned Retraction Statement will be published for the academic community in accordance with the Post-Publication Amendment Policy.

Second: Punitive Measures and Institutional Accountability

Should the Editorial Board's investigation conclude that a conflict of interest was intentionally concealed (by either the author or the reviewer), the following deterrent measures will be enforced to maintain the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing:

  • Academic Blacklisting: The violating party is placed on the Journal’s blacklist, barring them from publishing or participating in peer-review activities for periods ranging from three years to a permanent ban, depending on the severity of the infraction.
  • Institutional Notification: A detailed, official report of the incident—supported by documentation—is sent to the Deanship of Scientific Research or the Presidency of the University/Institution to which the violator belongs. This behavior is treated as a grave breach of the scientific integrity that governs academic promotions and employment.
  • Account Restriction: The personal account privileges of the involved parties on the Open Journal Systems (OJS) are suspended and flagged with the status: "In Violation of Ethical Policies."