Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

The peer review process is a fundamental pillar in ensuring the quality, validity, and integrity of research published in the Pijar Journal of Communication and Digital Media (PJCDM).

 

Article acceptance in PJCDM is based entirely on scientific integrity, scholarly novelty, rigorous methodology, and writing quality as assessed by the Editorial Board and Peer Reviewers. We are committed to publishing work that makes a tangible contribution to the advancement of communication studies and digital media knowledge. The following are the stages of manuscript evaluation in our journal:

 

  1. Initial Evaluation (Desk Evaluation)

Every submitted manuscript undergoes a screening process by the Editor. At this stage, the Editor examines the manuscript's alignment with the journal’s Focus and Scope, compliance with the manuscript template, and the level of similarity (plagiarism) using industry-standard software (such as Turnitin).

  • Manuscripts that are unoriginal, contain fatal methodological or analytical flaws, do not comply with the template, or fall outside the scope of communication studies and digital media will be immediately rejected (Desk Reject) without being sent to reviewers.
  • Manuscripts that meet the minimum criteria will proceed to the expert review stage.

 

  1. Review Mechanism (Double-Blind Peer Review)

PJCDM employs a Double-Blind Peer Review system to ensure complete objectivity in assessment, where the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the process. In practice, each manuscript is evaluated by at least two experts who possess strong competence relevant to the research topic. These reviewers are tasked with assessing the depth of scientific substance, scholarly novelty, and ensuring that the manuscript is entirely original and free from duplication.

 

  1. Assessment Aspects

Peer Reviewers are requested to provide a comprehensive critical evaluation of various key aspects of the communication and media manuscript. This assessment covers:

  • Originality and Novelty: The contribution of the research in offering fresh perspectives, critical insights, or developments in contemporary communication theory.
  • Methodological Rigor: Research design, data collection instruments (quantitative/qualitative), media corpora, and the validity of data analysis.
  • Data Interpretation: Clarity in presenting analytical results (narratives, graphs, tables, or visual data illustrations) to ensure conclusions are backed by strong empirical evidence.
  • References: Accuracy and currency of references used (prioritizing communication and media scientific journals from the last 5 years).
  • Research Ethics: Compliance with social science/humanities research ethics, informant/subject protection, and media data utilization standards.

Note: The reviewer's primary focus is on the substance of the content; therefore, grammatical corrections and language editing are entirely the responsibility of the author.

 

  1. Editorial Decision

The Editor or Editor-in-Chief holds full authority to make the final decision based on the recommendations of the Peer Reviewers. This decision may be:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted for publication without major changes.
  • Revisions Required: The author must improve the manuscript according to the specific suggestions provided.
  • Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires significant revisions and must be resubmitted for a new round of peer review assessment.
  • Decline Submission: The manuscript is rejected if deemed unsuitable for publication or fails to meet PJCDM's standards. The decision issued by the Editor is final and binding on all parties.

 

Call for Reviewers

The Pijar Journal of Communication and Digital Media (PJCDM) cordially invites academics, researchers, and senior professionals with established competence in communication studies, media research, and digital industries to join our scientific community as Peer Reviewers. By participating, you will receive professional recognition in the form of a certificate of appreciation and the inclusion of your name in our annual list of reviewers. This proof of review performance serves as valid supporting documentation for academic portfolios and Lecturer Workload Reports (BKD). If you are interested in contributing, please contact our editorial team.