Peer Reviewer Process
Procast: Journal of Communication, Multimedia, and Information Technology Development applies a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and academic integrity of all published manuscripts. The journal follows a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.
1. Initial Editorial Screening
All submitted manuscripts are first screened by the editorial team to determine whether they meet the journal's scope, basic academic standards, formatting requirements, and publication policies.
The editor may reject a manuscript at this stage if it is outside the journal's scope, lacks sufficient academic quality, does not meet the submission requirements, or raises concerns regarding originality or publication ethics.
2. Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.
Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, and suitability to the topic. The editorial team also considers potential conflicts of interest when appointing reviewers.
3. Double-Blind Review
Procast uses a double-blind peer-review process. Reviewers are not informed of the identity or affiliation of the authors, and authors are not informed of the identity of the reviewers.
Authors should therefore ensure that the submitted manuscript does not unnecessarily reveal their identity through the manuscript text, file properties, acknowledgments, or other identifying information.
4. Review Criteria
Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on several criteria, including:
The relevance of the manuscript to the journal's scope
Originality and significance of the research
Clarity of the research objectives and research questions
Adequacy and rigor of the methodology
Quality and appropriateness of data analysis
Clarity and accuracy of the results
Quality of the discussion and interpretation
Contribution to theory, methodology, or practice
Quality and relevance of references
Clarity and organization of the manuscript
Compliance with research and publication ethics
5. Reviewer Recommendations
After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers provide comments and recommendations to the editor. The possible recommendations are:
Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject
The final editorial decision is not determined solely by a single reviewer's recommendation. The editor considers the overall quality of the manuscript, reviewer comments, the relevance of the study, and the journal's publication standards.
6. Revision Process
If revisions are required, authors must revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' and editor's comments.
Authors should provide a clear response explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.
Multiple rounds of revision may be conducted when required to ensure the quality of the manuscript.
7. Editorial Decision
Following the completion of the peer-review process, the editor makes the final decision regarding the manuscript.
The possible final decisions are acceptance, acceptance subject to revision, or rejection.
The editor may also request additional review or clarification when necessary.
8. Confidentiality and Reviewer Ethics
Reviewers must treat all manuscripts received for review as confidential documents.
Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal or professional purposes.
Reviewers must provide objective, constructive, and respectful comments and should disclose any potential conflict of interest to the editor.
9. Review Timeline
Procast aims to conduct the review process in a timely manner while maintaining academic rigor. The duration of the review process may vary depending on the availability of reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, and the number of revisions required.
The editorial team may contact additional reviewers when invited reviewers decline the assignment or when additional expertise is required.
10. Final Responsibility
The editor retains final responsibility for all publication decisions. Peer-review comments are an important part of the editorial decision-making process, but the editor may accept or reject a manuscript based on the overall academic assessment and the journal's policies.
Procast is committed to conducting the peer-review process fairly, transparently, confidentially, and consistently in order to maintain the quality and integrity of the published scholarly record.
