Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the Ihyaul Insan: Journal of Communication Studies (JII) undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review procedure. This policy is implemented to ensure an objective, fair, and impartial evaluation of each submission. Manuscripts are assessed based on their relevance to the journal's scope, originality, scientific contribution, methodological rigor, and overall academic quality.

The review process consists of the following stages:

  1. Authors must complete the registration process and submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system in accordance with the Author Guidelines.
  2. Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial editorial assessment (desk review) by considering the following criteria:
    • The manuscript's relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
    • The originality, novelty, and scholarly contribution of the study.
    • Compliance with the journal's formatting and submission requirements.
    • Similarity screening using plagiarism detection software such as Turnitin.
  3. Based on the initial assessment, the Editor-in-Chief may make one of the following decisions:
    • Desk Reject, if the manuscript does not meet the journal's basic publication criteria.
    • Revision Required, if the manuscript requires technical or formatting revisions before entering the peer review stage.
    • Proceed to Peer Review, if the manuscript satisfies the editorial requirements.
  4. Manuscripts that pass the desk review are assigned to a Section Editor, who appoints at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript's subject area.
  5. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently under the double-blind peer review system and provide one of the following recommendations:
    • Accept
    • Minor Revision
    • Major Revision
    • Reject
  6. Taking into account the reviewers' recommendations and comments, the Section Editor and Editor-in-Chief make the editorial decision as follows:
    • Accepted, when the manuscript meets the journal's publication standards without further revision.
    • Minor Revision, when only limited revisions are required.
    • Major Revision, when substantial revisions are necessary before further consideration.
    • Rejected, when the manuscript does not satisfy the journal's scientific or editorial standards.
  7. Authors receiving a revision decision are required to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the reviewers' comments and resubmit the revised version through the journal management system within the specified deadline.
  8. The revised manuscript will be re-evaluated by the Section Editor and, when necessary, returned to the reviewers to verify that all comments have been adequately addressed.
  9. Once the manuscript is accepted for publication, it proceeds to the copyediting stage, where language, grammar, formatting, and journal style are refined. The manuscript then undergoes layout editing before being returned to the author for final proofreading and approval.
  10. After the production process has been completed, the editorial office will issue a Letter of Acceptance (LoA) and provide the author with the final version of the manuscript scheduled for publication.

Review Timeline

The desk review process is generally completed within one week after manuscript submission. Manuscripts that successfully pass this stage will have their status changed in the Open Journal Systems (OJS) from "Awaiting Assignment" to "In Review."

The subsequent peer review process typically requires four to eight weeks, depending on the availability of reviewers and the complexity of the manuscript. If authors do not receive any notification regarding the progress of their submission within this period, they are encouraged to contact the editorial office via the journal's official email address for further information