Peer Review Process

Journal of Communication Science and Public Administration (JCSPA) applies a rigorous and transparent peer-review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of all manuscripts considered for publication.

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening before being assigned to qualified reviewers. The review process is conducted by experts with relevant academic and professional expertise in communication science, public administration, public policy, governance, media studies, public services, and related fields.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is first examined by the editorial team to determine whether it:

  • Fits the focus and scope of JCSPA;
  • Meets the journal's basic academic and structural requirements;
  • Demonstrates sufficient originality and scholarly contribution;
  • Follows the journal's author guidelines;
  • Meets applicable publication ethics requirements; and
  • Has an acceptable level of similarity based on plagiarism screening.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements or fall outside the journal's scope may be rejected at this stage without being sent for external peer review.

2. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject of the manuscript.

JCSPA seeks to select reviewers based on their academic expertise, research experience, and knowledge of the relevant field. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and confidential assessments of the manuscript.

3. Peer Review

The journal applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of the authors and reviewers are kept confidential from each other during the review process.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on several aspects, including:

  • Originality and novelty;
  • Relevance to the journal's focus and scope;
  • Clarity of research objectives and questions;
  • Adequacy of the theoretical framework and literature review;
  • Appropriateness of the research methodology;
  • Quality and validity of data and analysis;
  • Clarity and significance of the findings;
  • Quality of discussion and interpretation;
  • Contribution to communication science and/or public administration;
  • Quality and relevance of references; and
  • Compliance with research and publication ethics.

4. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers provide recommendations to the editor. The possible recommendations include:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Major revisions required
  • Reject and resubmit
  • Reject

The final editorial decision is made by the editor based on the reviewers' comments, the quality of the manuscript, and the journal's editorial policies.

5. Revision Process

When revisions are required, authors must carefully address all comments and recommendations provided by the reviewers.

Authors may be requested to submit:

  1. A revised version of the manuscript; and
  2. A response to reviewers explaining how each comment has been addressed.

The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

6. Editorial Decision

The editor has the final authority to determine whether a manuscript is accepted, revised, or rejected for publication.

An editorial decision is based on the overall quality and contribution of the manuscript and is not determined solely by the recommendation of one reviewer.

Acceptance of a manuscript is subject to the completion of all required revisions and editorial processes.

7. Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

All manuscripts submitted to JCSPA are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose manuscript contents or use unpublished information for personal or professional purposes.

Reviewers are required to declare any potential conflict of interest and should decline the review if they have a personal, professional, institutional, or financial relationship that could compromise their objectivity.

8. Review Timeline

JCSPA aims to conduct the peer-review process in a timely and efficient manner. However, the duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and the number of review rounds required.

The editorial team may seek additional reviewers when necessary to ensure a fair and well-informed editorial decision.

9. Post-Acceptance Process

After acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to the editorial and production stages, which may include copyediting, formatting, proofreading, and final preparation for online publication.

Authors may be contacted during this stage to verify or correct the final version of their manuscript.

10. Commitment to Fair and Transparent Review

Journal of Communication Science and Public Administration (JCSPA) is committed to maintaining a fair, objective, confidential, and academically rigorous peer-review process. Editorial decisions are made based on scholarly merit, originality, relevance, methodological quality, and contribution to the development of knowledge in communication science and public administration.

The journal does not discriminate against authors on the basis of nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, religion, or other non-academic characteristics. All manuscripts are evaluated according to the same academic and ethical standards.