Peer Review Guidelines

The Journal of Communication and Information Sciences in Asia (JCISA) employs a Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure that manuscript evaluation is fair, transparent, and maintains high academic standards. Reviewers are not informed of the authors’ identities, and authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities.

Peer Review Guidelines

To ensure that manuscript evaluation meets academic standards, reviewers are expected to assess submissions systematically by considering scholarly merit, methodological rigor, and contribution to the field. The evaluation criteria are as follows:

1. Relevance to the Journal’s Scope: Assess whether the manuscript falls within the fields of Communication or Information Sciences, and whether it aligns with the journal’s objectives.
2. Academic Contribution and Originality: The manuscript should demonstrate currency, originality, and a meaningful contribution to the advancement of knowledge in the field.
3. Clarity of the Abstract: The abstract should clearly, concisely, and comprehensively summarize the key aspects of the study and accurately reflect the manuscript’s content.
4. Background and Significance of the Problem: The study should clearly explain the background, rationale, and necessity of the research, and identify the knowledge gap it intends to address.
5. Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Accuracy: The manuscript should apply appropriate theories or conceptual frameworks, provide complete and relevant citations, and ensure that the framework aligns with the research objectives.
6. Research Methodology and Data Analysis: The research design should be appropriate to the research questions. Instruments and data analysis procedures must be accurate, well-justified, and clearly explained to ensure transparency and replicability.
7. Presentation and Discussion of Findings: Results should be presented systematically and analyzed in depth. The discussion should clearly interpret the findings and link them to the research objectives and relevant theories.
8. Conclusions and Recommendations: Conclusions must be consistent with the research objectives and findings. Recommendations should provide academic or practical value.
9. Academic Writing and Language: The manuscript should use clear, formal, and academically appropriate language, with logical organization and coherence.
10. Citations and References: References must be complete, accurate, and formatted according to the journal’s guidelines.
11. Overall Suitability for Publication: The manuscript should demonstrate sufficient overall quality to merit publication in an academic journal.
12. Benefit to Readers: The work should offer academic value or practical applications that readers can meaningfully apply.

Recommendation Categories: Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accept without revision
• Accept with minor revisions
• Major revisions required (resubmit for review)