Reviewer Guidelines

Peer reviewers are responsible for critically evaluating manuscripts within their areas of expertise and providing authors with respectful, constructive, impartial, and honest feedback. Reviewers should identify the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses, recommend ways to improve its academic quality, and assess its originality, relevance, methodological soundness, and contribution to media and communication studies.

Before Accepting a Review

Before agreeing to review a manuscript, please consider the following:

Does the manuscript fall within your area of academic expertise?
Can you complete the review thoroughly within the specified deadline?
Do you have any personal, professional, financial, institutional, or academic conflict of interest that could affect your impartiality?

If the manuscript lies outside your expertise, you cannot meet the deadline, or a potential conflict of interest exists, please notify the Editorial Office promptly and decline the invitation.

The Review Process

When evaluating a manuscript, reviewers should consider its originality, academic relevance, clarity, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and contribution to media and communication studies. Attention should also be given to the manuscript’s organization, compliance with the journal’s author guidelines, use of relevant literature, accuracy of citations, quality of language, and any indications of research misconduct.

Title: Is the title clear, concise, informative, and representative of the manuscript’s content?
Abstract: Does the abstract accurately summarize the study’s background, objectives, methods, principal findings, and conclusions?
Introduction: Does the introduction clearly identify the research problem, context, significance, objectives, questions, or hypotheses? Does it adequately explain the gap addressed by the study?
Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Does the manuscript critically engage with relevant and current scholarship? Are the principal concepts clearly defined? Is the theoretical or conceptual framework appropriate and applied consistently?
Methods: Is the research design suitable for addressing the stated objectives or research questions? Are the population, sample, media materials, content units, data sources, instruments, coding procedures, and analytical methods adequately described? Are validity, reliability, and ethical procedures reported where applicable? Is sufficient information provided to allow evaluation or replication of the study?
Results: Are the findings presented clearly, logically, and objectively? Do they correspond to the research questions or hypotheses? Where statistical methods are used, are the analyses appropriate and accurately reported?
Discussion: Are the findings interpreted appropriately and supported by the results? Does the discussion relate the findings to the theoretical framework and previous research? Are alternative interpretations, limitations, and practical or scholarly implications adequately considered?
Conclusion: Does the conclusion accurately reflect the findings and explain the study’s contribution to media and communication knowledge? Are the recommendations reasonable and supported by the evidence?
Tables, Figures, and Media Materials: Are tables, graphs, photographs, screenshots, advertisements, social-media materials, and other illustrations relevant, clearly presented, properly labelled, and easy to interpret? Are their sources and permissions provided where required?
References: Are the references relevant, sufficient, current, and accurately cited? Have important publications been omitted? Reviewers must not request unnecessary citations to their own work, the journal, or particular authors.
Language and Presentation: Is the manuscript written clearly and organized logically? Reviewers may identify significant problems involving grammar, punctuation, terminology, or style, but they are not expected to provide comprehensive language editing.

Ethical Issues

Plagiarism and Textual Overlap: If you suspect that a manuscript contains plagiarism or substantial unattributed overlap with another work, please notify the Editor confidentially and provide the relevant source or evidence in as much detail as possible.
Duplicate or Redundant Publication: Reviewers should inform the Editor if they identify substantial similarity between the manuscript and another published or submitted work.
Fabrication or Falsification: Any suspicion that survey responses, interviews, media samples, coding results, images, data, or findings have been invented, altered, omitted, or manipulated should be reported confidentially to the Editor.
Human Participants and Privacy: Where research involves participants, interviewees, online communities, social-media users, or identifiable individuals, reviewers should assess whether appropriate ethical approval, informed consent, confidentiality, and privacy protections have been addressed.
Copyright and Permissions: Reviewers should identify any apparent unauthorized use of photographs, screenshots, audiovisual material, advertisements, social-media content, or other copyrighted material.
Other Ethical Concerns: Any suspected violation of accepted research or publication ethics should be reported privately to the Editor and should not be included as an accusation in comments addressed directly to the authors.

Preparing the Review Report

The review report should be clear, specific, evidence-based, and constructive. Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions. Personal criticism, hostile language, unsupported accusations, and discriminatory or defamatory comments are unacceptable.

Please complete and submit the Reviewer’s Comments form by the assigned deadline. The review should normally include:

A brief overall assessment of the manuscript.
Comments on its strengths and scholarly contribution.
Major issues requiring attention.
Minor comments and suggested improvements.
Confidential comments to the Editor, where necessary.
A clear recommendation in accordance with the options provided by the journal.

Confidentiality and Appropriate Conduct

The manuscript and all associated materials must be treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers must not share, quote, reproduce, upload, or discuss the manuscript with another person without prior permission from the Editor.
Reviewers must not upload the manuscript or any part of it to publicly accessible artificial-intelligence tools, online platforms, or external services that could compromise confidentiality.
Unpublished information, arguments, data, interpretations, or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for personal or professional advantage.
Reviewers must not contact the authors directly.
If consultation with a colleague is necessary, prior approval must be obtained from the Editor, and the colleague’s identity and contribution must be disclosed.

Important Note: Reviewers’ recommendations are advisory and will be considered by the editors when making the final decision. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the Editorial Board of ATJMS.