Reviewer Guidelines

Feedback International Journal of Communication (FIJC)

The Feedback International Journal of Communication (FIJC) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous Double Blind Peer Review process. Reviewers play a crucial role in ensuring the quality, originality, scientific contribution, and ethical integrity of every manuscript published in the journal.

We sincerely appreciate the valuable time, expertise, and commitment of our reviewers in supporting academic excellence and advancing communication studies worldwide.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and professionally.

  • Maintain the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts.

  • Provide constructive, evidence-based, and respectful comments.

  • Identify strengths, weaknesses, originality, and scholarly contribution.

  • Notify the editor of any ethical concerns, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or potential conflicts of interest.

  • Complete reviews within the assigned review period.

Review Criteria

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria.

1. Originality and Novelty

Assess whether the manuscript:

  • Presents original research findings.

  • Offers new theoretical or practical insights.

  • Contributes significantly to communication studies.

  • Avoids plagiarism and redundant publication.

Rating:

  • Excellent

  • Good

  • Fair

  • Poor

2. Relevance to Journal Scope

Determine whether the manuscript aligns with FIJC's focus on:

  • Communication Studies

  • Media Studies

  • Journalism

  • Public Relations

  • Digital Communication

  • Political Communication

  • Organizational Communication

  • Interpersonal Communication

  • Cultural Communication

  • Health Communication

  • Marketing Communication

  • Islamic Communication

  • Artificial Intelligence in Communication

  • Other emerging communication issues

3. Title

Evaluate whether the title is:

  • Clear

  • Specific

  • Informative

  • Reflective of the study content

4. Abstract

The abstract should:

  • Clearly state the research objective.

  • Describe the methodology.

  • Present key findings.

  • Highlight the contribution.

  • Include relevant keywords.

5. Introduction

Assess whether the introduction:

  • Explains the research background.

  • Reviews relevant literature.

  • Identifies research gaps.

  • Clearly states objectives and research questions.

  • Demonstrates the novelty of the study.

6. Literature Review

Review whether:

  • The literature is current and relevant.

  • Theoretical foundations are appropriate.

  • References include recent international publications.

  • The discussion adequately supports the study.

7. Research Methodology

Evaluate:

  • Research design

  • Sampling procedures

  • Data collection methods

  • Instruments

  • Data analysis techniques

  • Ethical considerations

  • Validity and reliability (where applicable)

The methodology should be sufficiently detailed to enable replication.

8. Results

Review whether:

  • Results are presented clearly.

  • Tables and figures are relevant.

  • Statistical analyses are appropriate.

  • Findings directly answer the research questions.

9. Discussion

Determine whether the discussion:

  • Interprets findings appropriately.

  • Connects results with previous studies.

  • Explains theoretical and practical implications.

  • Addresses limitations.

  • Demonstrates scientific contribution.

10. Conclusion

The conclusion should:

  • Summarize major findings.

  • Answer research objectives.

  • Present implications.

  • Offer recommendations for future research.

11. References

Evaluate whether:

  • References are relevant.

  • Citations follow the journal style.

  • Recent international sources are included.

  • References are consistent and complete.

Ethical Considerations

Reviewers must adhere to the highest standards of publication ethics.

Reviewers should:

  • Treat manuscripts as confidential documents.

  • Not share or distribute manuscript content.

  • Avoid using unpublished information for personal research.

  • Declare any conflicts of interest.

  • Inform editors if plagiarism, fabricated data, image manipulation, duplicate publication, or unethical research practices are suspected.

Review Recommendations

After completing the review, reviewers should recommend one of the following decisions:

Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication without revision or only requires minor editorial corrections.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires small revisions that do not substantially affect its scientific quality.

Major Revision

The manuscript has potential but requires significant improvement before reconsideration.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic standards, lacks originality, contains serious methodological flaws, or falls outside the journal's scope.

Constructive Feedback

Reviewers are encouraged to provide comments under two categories.

Comments to the Author

Provide constructive suggestions regarding:

  • Clarity of writing

  • Organization

  • Methodological improvements

  • Literature enhancement

  • Interpretation of findings

  • Language quality

  • Scientific contribution

Comments should remain respectful, objective, and supportive.

Confidential Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may confidentially inform the editor about:

  • Ethical concerns

  • Suspected plagiarism

  • Duplicate publication

  • Conflict of interest

  • Publication suitability

  • Any additional considerations not intended for the authors

Review Timeline

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Accept or decline the invitation within 7 days.

  • Submit the completed review within 14–21 days after accepting the invitation.

  • Inform the editorial office promptly if additional time is required.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline a review invitation if they:

  • Have collaborated recently with the authors.

  • Work at the same institution as the authors.

  • Have financial or personal interests that may influence their judgment.

  • Cannot provide an impartial evaluation.

Reviewer Recognition

FIJC highly values the contributions of its reviewers. Subject to journal policy, reviewers may receive:

  • Certificate of Reviewing

  • Annual Reviewer Recognition

  • Opportunity to join the Editorial Board based on outstanding performance

  • Recognition through reviewer platforms where applicable

Publication Ethics

FIJC follows internationally recognized publication ethics and expects reviewers to uphold principles of:

  • Integrity

  • Fairness

  • Confidentiality

  • Transparency

  • Objectivity

  • Academic honesty

Thank You

The Editorial Board of the Feedback International Journal of Communication (FIJC) sincerely appreciates the dedication and expertise of all reviewers. Your valuable contribution helps ensure the publication of high-quality, impactful, and internationally recognized research in communication studies.