Peer Review Framework and Evaluation Methodology

First: Detailed Procedural Workflow

 

1.1. Manuscript Reception, Technical and Ethical Screening

Phase Zero: Electronic Submission

• Author’s Action:

The author submits the manuscript via the journal’s platform, including all required metadata and abstracts.

• Journal Monitoring Board Action:

The board receives the manuscript immediately, conducts a plagiarism check via (Turnitin), verifies compliance with the journal’s publication criteria and formal formatting requirements, and subsequently uploads a digital technical report.

• Editor-in-Chief's Operational Role:
• The Editor-in-Chief logs into the dashboard and reviews the report provided by the "Journal Monitoring Board."
• In the event of detected plagiarism or non-compliance with the specifications, the Editor-in-Chief selects the "Desk Reject" option and signs the reasoned rejection letter.
• If the report is clear, the Editor-in-Chief selects the "Assign Editor" option, programmatically routing the manuscript to the editor representing the specialized academic department (Journalism, Radio & Television, Public Relations, or Digital Media).

2.2. Specialized Vetting and Reviewer Appointment

Phase One: Objective Screening

• Editor’s Action (Department Representative):

The editor reviews the manuscript to evaluate its scholarly depth and alignment with the department's scope, then nominates (3 to 4) peer reviewers from the database within the precise sub-specialization (e.g., an expert in media discourse analysis methodologies or an expert in digital media economics).

• Editor-in-Chief's Operational Role:
• The Editor-in-Chief accesses the system to review the list of prospective reviewers proposed by the department representative.
• The Editor-in-Chief practically verifies the "Conflict of Interest Mitigation" criteria (ensuring there is no institutional link or professional collaboration between the reviewer and the author).
• The Editor-in-Chief clicks "Approve and Send" to launch the automated peer review invitations under a strict Double-Blind system.

3.3. Intellectual Review and Timeline Management

Phase Two: Scholarly Evaluation

• Reviewers’ Action:

Reviewers receive the fully anonymized manuscript, fill out the standardized scientific evaluation rubric (assessing conceptual novelty, methodology, sampling integrity, and the discussion of findings in light of communication theories), and submit their advisory recommendation within 21 days.

• Managing Editor’s Action:

The Managing Editor monitors the control panel, tracks reviewer response rates to invitations, and oversees the dissemination of automated system reminders prior to deadline expiration.

• Editor-in-Chief's Operational Role:

The Editor-in-Chief intervenes operationally only in contingency scenarios (such as an abrupt reviewer apology or an unjustified delay), holding the executive authority to revoke the assignment and immediately appoint an alternate reviewer to preserve the publication velocity that characterizes Open Access journals.

4.4. Report Harmonization and Editorial Decision-Making

Phase Three: Decision Governance

• Editor’s Action (Department Representative):

The editor evaluates the incoming peer review reports, synthesizes a comprehensive editorial summary containing the department's formal recommendation, and uploads it to the Editor-in-Chief’s dashboard.

• Managing Editor's Operational Role:

The Managing Editor faces three critical implementation pathways here:

• The Direct Pathway: Unanimous agreement among reviewers to accept pending revisions; the Editor-in-Chief endorses the recommendation and orders the system to transmit the revision notes to the author.
• The Scholarly Rejection Pathway: Unanimous agreement among reviewers to reject due to a fatal methodological flaw; the Editor-in-Chief drafts the final rejection letter in a rigorous academic tone that protects the journal's prestige.
• The Adjudication Pathway: In case of conflicting evaluations (one reviewer accepts and the other completely rejects), the editor appoints a "Tie-Breaking Reviewer" (Tierce Reviewer) to resolve the deadlock.

5.5. Revision Review and Final Acceptance

Phase Four: Compliance Verification

• Author’s Action:

The author uploads the revised manuscript accompanied by a "Response to Reviewers Matrix," detailing the modifications page by page.

• Editor’s Action (Department Representative):

The editor cross-checks the modifications against the text to ensure the author's full compliance, subsequently uploading the technical approval report.

• Editor-in-Chief's Operational Role:
• The Editor-in-Chief conducts a targeted quality audit of substantive revisions (focusing specifically on sample recalibrations or statistical instruments).
• The Editor-in-Chief executes the primary system command: "Accept Submission," which automatically generates the formal acceptance letter bearing their digital signature.

6.6. Technical Production and Open Access Publication

Phase Five: Digital Production

• Managing Editor’s Action:

The Managing Editor takes the accepted manuscript, routes it to copyediting and layout design, generates its unique Digital Object Identifier (DOI), and verifies the comprehensive indexing metadata.

• Editor-in-Chief's Operational Role:
• The Editor-in-Chief authors the Editorial article for the issue, addressing a contemporary scholarly development within the field of media and communication.
• The Editor-in-Chief approves the final table of contents and article sequencing for the digital issue.
• The Editor-in-Chief executes the "Publish Issue" command, rendering the volume instantly accessible for global reading and complimentary download under Creative Commons (CC) licensing specifications.

Second: Partitioning Role Governance for Website Display

To clarify administrative and academic authorities for website visitors, including authors, reviewers, and global indexing agencies, responsibilities are divided according to the following "Functional Authority Matrix":

1. Strategic Oversight and Executive Adjudication (Editor-in-Chief Prerogatives)

• Editorial Sovereignty: Safeguarding absolute compliance with the standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), while articulating the journal's intellectual vision.
• Scholarly Endorsement: Executing final validation of independent reviewer rosters and ensuring rigorous conflict-of-interest mitigation.
• Conflict Adjudication: Intervening to resolve deadlocks in peer evaluations by appointing an adjudicating third reviewer.
• Executive Sign-off: Holding exclusive authority to issue desk rejections, finalize acceptances, and authorize the public release of journal issues.

2. Ethical Vetting and Digital Operations (Supporting Editorial Boards)

• Journal Monitoring Board (Technical Secretariat): Serves as the sole custodian of initial manuscript intake, executing automated plagiarism screening (Turnitin) and verifying structural adherence to the journal's style guide before manuscripts enter the active editorial stream.
• Managing Editor (Technical Systems Engineer): Configures and maintains the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, generates and manages DOIs, monitors workflow timeline compliance, and oversees copyediting and final layout typesetting.

3. Scholarly Evaluation and Disciplinary Expertise (Editors and Reviewers)

• Section Editors (Departmental Representatives): Conduct the initial substantive vetting within their specific media sub-disciplines, nominate qualified peer reviewers, synthesize peer review reports, and submit structured editorial recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief.
• Peer Reviewers (Independent Advisory Board): Provide critical evaluations of manuscripts by interrogating their theoretical frameworks and methodological soundness. They offer constructive, granular feedback to authors and supply non-binding advisory recommendations to the editorial board.

You are entirely correct; academic grievances and appeals are typically allocated a separate administrative and legal section to resolve disputes between authors and the journal as a whole. Therefore, placing them here would introduce a redundancy that detracts from organizational rigor.

Since we have excluded ethical dilemmas and administrative grievances, leaving the digital methodological framework (first) and the verification of final revisions (second), the actual remaining gap within the peer review process itself—which distinguishes international media journals—lies in organizing the "Review Environment and Structure" in terms of methodologies and complete confidentiality, specifically the transition toward open review or double-blind protocols and key performance indicators (KPIs).