Peer Review Process
Double-Blind Peer Review System
Interaction implements a double-blind peer review system for all submitted manuscripts. In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other to ensure objectivity and impartiality in the evaluation.
Author Responsibilities
- Remove all identifying information from manuscripts before submission, including names, affiliations, and acknowledgments
- Write self-citations in the third person (e.g., "As demonstrated by Smith (2020)..." rather than "As we demonstrated previously...")
- Remove metadata or document properties containing author information
Reviewer Selection
The Editorial Board assigns qualified reviewers based on their expertise from a cross-university and international reviewer database, ensuring rigorous and unbiased assessment.
Evaluation Process Stages
Timeline
The evaluation process takes approximately three months and involves several stages.
Stage 1: Article Submission
Authors upload manuscripts through the journal platform, completing all required information and uploading an anonymised version of the manuscript.
Key Requirements:
- Complete submission form
- Upload anonymized manuscript
- Provide all metadata
- Submit separate author biography file
Stage 2: Initial Screening by Editorial Board
The Editorial Board assesses manuscripts based on:
- Scope Alignment: Conformity with the journal's scope and focus
- Format Compliance: Adherence to formatting and submission requirements
- Academic Quality: Originality and academic contribution
Decision Outcomes:
- ❌ Reject - Manuscript does not meet the journal's criteria
- ✓ Proceed to Review - Assign qualified external reviewers
Processing Time: 1-2 weeks
Stage 3: Initial Selection Notification
Authors are informed of the initial screening results via email notification.
What to Expect:
- Email confirmation of screening decision
- Next steps (if manuscript proceeds)
- Rejection explanation (if manuscript is declined)
Stage 4: Anonymous Evaluation by External Reviewers
Review Duration: 20 days (3 weeks)
Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:
| Criteria | Description |
|---|---|
| Originality & Significance | Novel contribution to the field |
| Methodological Rigour | Soundness of research design and methods |
| Analysis Quality | Quality of analysis and interpretation |
| Presentation Clarity | Clarity of presentation and writing quality |
| Field Relevance | Relevance to Communication Sociology |
Important Note: Reviewers provide assessments without knowledge of the authors' identities, ensuring unbiased evaluation.
Stage 5: Reviewer Evaluation Report
Reviewers submit comprehensive reports to the Editorial Board, including:
Qualitative Components:
- Detailed comments on strengths and weaknesses
- Specific suggestions for improvement
- References to support recommendations
Quantitative Components:
- Numerical ratings based on established criteria
- Overall assessment scores
Recommendations:
- ✅ Accept - Ready for publication
- Minor Revision - Small improvements needed
- Major Revision - Substantial changes required
- ❌ Reject - Does not meet publication standards
Confidentiality: Reviewer identities remain confidential throughout the process.
Stage 6: Editorial Decision and Notification
Authors receive one of the following outcomes:
| Decision | Description | Next Steps |
|---|---|---|
| ✅ Accept | Manuscript accepted for publication with minor or no revisions | Proceed to copyediting and publication |
| Minor Revision | Manuscript requires small improvements before acceptance | Submit revised manuscript addressing comments |
| Major Revision | Manuscript needs substantial revisions and will undergo additional review | Submit thoroughly revised manuscript for re-review |
| ❌ Reject | Manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for publication | May submit to another venue |
Notification Includes:
- Decision letter from the Editor
- Anonymized reviewer reports
- Specific comments and suggestions
- Deadline for revisions (if applicable)
Revision and Resubmission
Philosophy
Authors receiving revision requests will receive comprehensive feedback designed to support scholarly development and improve the quality of their work.
Key Points
- No Limit on Revisions: There is no limit to the number of revisions, provided the manuscript has passed the initial screening stage and authors adequately address reviewer concerns
- Comprehensive Support: Detailed feedback provided to guide improvements
- Quality Focus: Process designed to enhance manuscript quality and contribution
Revision Process
- Receive Feedback: Download reviewer comments and editor's decision letter
- Prepare Revisions: Address all reviewer comments systematically
- Create Response Letter: Prepare detailed point-by-point response explaining:
- Changes made for each comment
- Location of changes in the manuscript
- Justification if suggestions were not followed
- Resubmit: Upload revised manuscript and response letter through the system
- Re-review: Major revisions will undergo additional review
Important Reminders
✓ Maintain anonymity in revised manuscript
✓ Meet revision deadline (usually 2-4 weeks)
✓ Contact editor if extension needed
Reviewer Responsibilities
Core Responsibilities
✓ In-Depth Evaluation: Provide thorough and objective evaluation of submitted manuscripts
✓ Timely Review: Complete reviews within the specified timeframe (20 days)
✓ Comprehensive Reports: Submit detailed reports with necessary references and clear reasoning
✓ Constructive Feedback: Provide specific, actionable suggestions for improvement
✓ Clear Justification: Provide clear reasons if recommending rejection, following evaluation standards
Reviewer Qualifications
| Requirement | Description |
|---|---|
| Expertise | Have relevant expertise in the research topic |
| No Conflicts | Have no conflicts of interest related to the manuscript, authors, or funding sources |
| Academic Standing | Hold appropriate academic credentials in the field |
| Experience | Demonstrated experience in scholarly research and publication |
Ethical Standards
- Maintain confidentiality of review materials
- Declare any potential conflicts of interest
- Provide unbiased, objective assessments
- Respect intellectual property
Confidentiality
Interaction maintains complete confidentiality during the evaluation process, protecting:
Author Anonymity
Author identities are concealed from reviewers throughout the review process
Reviewer Anonymity
Reviewer identities remain confidential and are never disclosed to authors
Content Under Review
Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents
Reviewer Reports
All reviewer assessments and comments are kept confidential
Editorial Communications
All communications issued by the editorial board remain private
Confidentiality Agreement
All participants in the review process (authors, reviewers, editors) are bound by confidentiality agreements and ethical standards of scholarly publishing.
Data Protection
- Secure platform for manuscript handling
- Limited access to submission materials
- Protected communication channels
- Compliance with data protection regulations
Contact Information
For questions about the peer review process:
Email: editorial@interaction.id
Response Time: 3-5 business days
Office Hours: Monday - Friday, 09:00 - 17:00 WIB (GMT+7)
Last Updated: November 2025
