Thank you for agreeing to review a manuscript for the Journal of Cultural Studies & Communication  (JCSC). We hope you will find the following guidelines helpful as you prepare timely and informative reviews for manuscripts submitted to JCSC.

Peer review, also known as refereeing, is a collaborative process that allows manuscripts submitted to a journal to be evaluated and commented upon by independent experts within the same field of research. The evaluation and critique generated from peer review allows the editor to assess the paper’s suitability for publication in the journal. Reviewers’ comments are invaluable to author(s) as their suggestions will help improve their submission. Reviewers will highlight serious flaws in submissions that will impede publication, or whether there are additional trials or data available which support author conclusions. Should a manuscript be rejected, the comments supplied will enable the authors to improve their research. The peer-review process does receive much criticism and is not without its limitations; however, it remains a widely recognized standard in terms of journal quality.

We trust you to be prompt, fair, respectful of the rights of the authors, respectful of our obligations to the readership, and to evaluate the manuscript carefully and in depth. At the same time, on behalf of the JCSC membership, we are very grateful for the time and effort you invest in the review process.

ETHICAL ISSUES

Timing: If you are reviewing a manuscript, please aim to complete your review within 14 days. If you need more time or are unable to perform the review, please notify us immediately so that we can assign alternate reviewers if necessary.

Confidentiality: Any manuscript sent for peer review is a confidential document and remains so until it is published. Please do not show it to anyone or discuss it, except to solicit assistance with a technical point. If you feel a colleague is more qualified than you to review the paper, do not pass the manuscript on to that person without first requesting permission to do so. As reviewers’ identity is never disclosed to the Authors, make sure your comments are anonymous and you may not be identified from your observations.

Plagiarism: if you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the Editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible.

Fraud: it can be very difficult to detect fraud, but if you suspect the results of any works to be untrue, please discuss your concerns directly with the Editor.

Conflicts of Interest: If you feel you might have difficulty writing an objective review, please return the paper immediately, unreviewed. If your previous or present connection with the author(s) or an author's institution might be construed as creating a conflict of interest, but no actual conflict exists, please discuss this issue in your confidential comments to the editor. If in doubt, feel free to contact the Subject-matter Editor who requested your review.

Fairness and objectivity: If the research reported in this paper is flawed, criticize the science, not the scientist. Harsh words in a review will cause the reader to doubt your objectivity; as a result, your criticisms will be rejected, even if they are correct! Comments directed to the author should convince the author that (1) you have read the entire paper carefully, (2) your criticisms are objective and correct, are not merely differences of opinion, and are intended to help the author improve his or her paper, and (3) you are qualified to provide an expert opinion about the research reported in this paper. If you fail to win the author's respect and appreciation, much of your effort will have been wasted.

WRITING THE REVIEW

Please provide a statement to identify the major contributions of the paper. What are its major strengths and weaknesses and its suitability for publication?

Support your general comments, positive or negative, with specific evidence. Remember that a review lacking substance will generally have less impact than a review that is well-reasoned and rich in content. If you intend to provide a marked up copy of your manuscript as part of your review, you can do so by uploading the file to the review form. However, we prefer to have these marked-up files in PDF format rather than Word to ensure that the comments and annotations can be easily forwarded to the author. Please remember to anonymize your comments. Comment on any of the following key points that significantly affected your judgment of the paper:

1. Presentation checklist

• Title: Is the title adequate for the content, informative, concise and clear?
• Abstract: Is it comprehensive by itself? Is the important and essential information of the article included?
• References: Are appropriate and adequate references to related works covered sufficiently in the list? Full papers typically have approximately 30 or more references.
• Structure and length: Is the overall structure of the article well organized and well balanced? Is the article written in the minimum length necessary for all relevant information?
• Logic: Is the article written clearly and correctly? Does it have logical consistency?
• Figures and tables: Are they essential and clearly presented?
• English Abstract: Is the English language used in the article readable and good enough to convey scientific meaning correctly?

2. Scientific quality rating

• Completeness of presentation: Is the presentation complete for a scientific article? Please rate the article by considering the evaluation given in 1.
• Novelty and originality: Is the article novel and original? Does the article contain material that is new or significantly adds to knowledge already published?
• Importance and impact: Do the presented results have significant importance and impact to the advancement in the respective field of research? Is this article likely to be cited in the future?
• Theory: Does the submission contain a well-developed and articulated theoretical framework? Are the core concepts of the submission clearly defined? Is the logic behind the hypotheses persuasive? Is extant literature appropriately reflected in the submission, or are critical references missing? Do the hypotheses or propositions logically flow from the theory?
• Method: Are the sample and variables appropriate for the hypotheses? Is the data collection method consistent with the analytical technique(s) applied? Does the study have internal and external validity? Are the analytical techniques appropriate for the theory and research questions and were they applied appropriately.
• Errors: Is there any errors in technique, fact, calculation and interpretation?
• 13. Overlap: Does this paper report data or conclusions already published or in press? If so, please provide details.
• 14. Scientific misconduct 

3. Overall rating and recommendation

• Summary of reviewer’s ratings: The result of reviewer’s rating is summarized.
• Recommendation: Provide recommendation if it is needed.

***

Once you’ve read the paper and have assessed its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the editor regarding publication. The specific decision types used by a journal may vary but the key decisions are:

• Accept – if the paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
• Minor revision – if the paper will be ready for publication after light revisions. Please list the revisions you would recommend the author makes.
• Major revision – if the paper would benefit from substantial changes such as expanded data analysis, widening of the literature review, or rewriting sections of the text.
• Reject – if the paper is not suitable for publication with this journal or if the revisions that would need to be undertaken are too fundamental for the submission to continue being considered in its current form.

Reviewer’s remarks to the authors

Please provide comments and suggestions constructive and useful for the authors to improve the scientific quality and presentation of the article. If you are submitting a reviewer’s report to reject the article, you are asked to provide the reasons for rejection. Those comments are sent to the authors.

In order to make the time between manuscript submission and publication as short as possible, the reviewer is expected to make an effort to minimize the number of manuscript turnarounds between the authors and the reviewer. In preparing the reviewer’s report, it is recommended to point out all the critical issues involved in the article in the first round of the review process rather than adding new criticisms in the subsequent reviewing rounds.

Reviewer’s confidential remarks to the editor

Those comments are sent for the editor responsible to the review of the article, not to the authors. So any potential scientific misconducts, conflict of interest, etc. can be mentioned here.

• If you recommend “publish, please concisely describe the background and novelty/importance of the present research to merit its publication in the journal.
• If you recommend “reject,” please briefly provide the reasons.
• Other comments: Please provide additional information, if any, in relation with the evaluation of the article.

REVISED PAPERS

When authors make revisions to their article in response to reviewer comments, they are asked to submit a list of changes and any comments for transmission to the reviewers. The revised version is usually returned to the original reviewer if possible, who is then asked to affirm whether the revisions have been carried out satisfactorily.