Peer-Review Process

Al-Turath Journal of Media Studies (ATJMS) uses a double-blind peer-review process and follows the ethical principles, guidelines, and recommended practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Reviewer Suggestions

Authors may suggest suitably qualified reviewers when submitting their manuscripts. Suggested reviewers should possess relevant expertise in media, communication, journalism, digital media, public relations, advertising, or another field directly related to the submitted work.

Reviewer suggestions should be included in the cover letter and accompanied by verifiable professional information, such as the reviewer’s institutional affiliation, institutional email address, ORCID iD, and/or Scopus Author ID. Suggested reviewers must be independent of the authors and must not have any personal, professional, institutional, financial, supervisory, or collaborative relationship that could create an actual or perceived conflict of interest.

The Editor-in-Chief may consider the suggested reviewers but is under no obligation to invite or appoint them. The submission of reviewer suggestions does not guarantee their selection, and the final choice of reviewers rests exclusively with the Editorial Board.

Reviewer Exclusion Requests

Authors may request that certain individuals not be invited to review their manuscript. Each exclusion request must be included in the cover letter and supported by a brief and reasonable explanation, such as a significant conflict of interest or a professional circumstance that could reasonably affect impartiality.

Authors are advised to limit exclusion requests to genuinely necessary cases, as excessive requests may complicate or delay the peer-review process. The Editorial Board will consider such requests but is not obliged to accept them. To protect the independence, integrity, and academic quality of peer review, the journal reserves the right to appoint any appropriately qualified reviewer it considers suitable.

Integrity of the Peer-Review Process

Authors must not attempt to manipulate, influence, or compromise the peer-review process. Prohibited practices include, but are not limited to:

  • Providing fabricated reviewer names, identities, affiliations, qualifications, email addresses, ORCID iDs, or Scopus Author IDs.
  • Suggesting reviewers whose email accounts are controlled by the authors or by individuals acting on their behalf.
  • Impersonating a reviewer or arranging for another person to submit a review under a false identity.
  • Failing to disclose a personal, institutional, professional, financial, supervisory, or collaborative relationship with a suggested reviewer.
  • Attempting to contact, influence, pressure, or identify reviewers assigned to the manuscript.
  • Offering incentives or benefits intended to affect a reviewer’s evaluation or recommendation.

Any suspected manipulation of peer review will be investigated in accordance with COPE guidance and the journal’s publication-ethics policies. Confirmed misconduct may result in immediate rejection or withdrawal of the manuscript, retraction of a published article, restrictions on future submissions, and notification of the authors’ institutions or other appropriate authorities.

Editorial Independence

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board make the final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection based on the manuscript’s academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal’s scope, and the reviewers’ reports. Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by publication fees, commercial interests, or the authors’ choice of suggested or excluded reviewers.