Jurnal Communio implements a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and scholarly contribution of published manuscripts. The identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Communio are first screened by the Editor-in-Chief and/or the editorial team to assess their compliance with the journal’s focus and scope, author guidelines, academic standards, and publication ethics requirements. Manuscripts that are outside the journal’s scope or do not meet the basic editorial and technical requirements may be returned to the authors or rejected without external peer review.

2. Section Editor Assessment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a Section Editor who evaluates their suitability for further consideration and oversees the peer-review process. The Section Editor selects qualified reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject and methodological approach of the manuscript.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Eligible manuscripts are reviewed by at least two independent reviewers using a double-blind peer-review system. The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript objectively and constructively, considering aspects such as originality and significance, theoretical foundation, methodological rigour, quality of analysis and discussion, clarity of presentation, relevance to the journal’s scope, use of scholarly references, and overall contribution to Communication Science.

4. Editorial Decision

Following the completion of the peer-review process, the Section Editor evaluates the reviewers’ comments and recommendations and submits an editorial recommendation. The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the designated editor in accordance with the journal’s editorial policies.

The possible decisions include:

• Accept – the manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revision.

• Minor Revision – the manuscript requires limited revisions before it can be accepted.

• Major Revision – substantial revisions are required, and the revised manuscript may be subject to further peer review.

• Reject – the manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in Jurnal Communio.

Where reviewers provide substantially different assessments, the editor may seek an additional review or request further clarification before making a decision.

5. Revision and Re-Review

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the reviewers’ and editors’ comments and to submit the revised manuscript through the OJS system within the specified period. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when major revisions have been requested.

6. Final Acceptance and Publication

Once a manuscript has received a final acceptance decision, it proceeds to the editorial production stage, including copyediting, layout, proofreading, and final publication. The editorial team reserves the right to make editorial and formatting adjustments to ensure consistency with the journal’s publication standards.