Peer Review Process

Peer Review Policy

Step 1: Submission and Initial Desk Evaluation

The peer review process begins when a manuscript is submitted to Ettisal: Journal of Communication. The editorial team conducts an initial desk evaluation to verify that the submission aligns with the journal’s aims and scope, adheres to author guidelines, complies with publishing ethics, and meets minimum scholarly quality. During this stage, the manuscript is screened for originality using Turnitin plagiarism detection software. Submissions that fail to meet these criteria, lack originality, or fall outside the scope may be rejected at this point without external review.

Step 2: Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Upon successfully passing the initial screening, the handling editor assigns the manuscript to qualified peer reviewers who possess relevant subject expertise and have no conflicts of interest. To maintain absolute impartiality and academic integrity, the journal strictly enforces a double-blind peer review system, ensuring that the identities of both authors and reviewers remain completely anonymous. Invited reviewers assess their availability, expertise, and confidentiality obligations before accepting the review invitation.

Step 3: Peer Review Evaluation

During the evaluation phase, assigned reviewers conduct a thorough, evidence-based assessment of the manuscript. They evaluate key criteria including originality, theoretical grounding, source accuracy, methodological rigor, clarity of arguments, and adherence to ethical standards. Upon completing their evaluation, reviewers submit a comprehensive, constructive report along with one of four formal recommendations: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

Step 4: Editorial Decision Making

The handling editor and the Editor-in-Chief review and synthesize all reports provided by the reviewers to reach a final editorial decision. In scenarios where reviewer recommendations conflict significantly, an additional expert reviewer may be invited to provide further evaluation. The editors then synthesize all feedback to ensure fairness, consistency, and rigorous decision-making.

Step 5: Communication of Decision and Author Revisions

The editorial office sends the official decision letter to the authors, accompanied by anonymized reviewer comments to help strengthen the paper. If revisions are required (minor or major), authors must address all reviewer and editor feedback thoroughly before resubmitting the updated manuscript. Depending on the extent of the changes, the revised manuscript may undergo a secondary review by the original reviewers.

Step 6: Final Outcome (Production or Guidance)

Once a manuscript successfully completes all revision requirements and receives final acceptance, it moves directly to copyediting, formatting, and the publication production pipeline. Conversely, if a manuscript is rejected, the author receives constructive feedback to assist them in refining their research for potential submission to future scholarly venues.