CHANNEL: Jurnal Komunikasi uses a double-blind peer review process, in which authors' and reviewers' identities are concealed from one another. Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening to assess their suitability for the journal's focus and scope, compliance with author guidelines, originality, and adherence to publication ethics. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be declined without external peer review.

The peer review process evaluates the originality, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, analytical quality, and scholarly significance of manuscripts, particularly within the fields of digital media and media studies. Reviewers provide independent assessments and constructive recommendations to support editorial decision-making.

Authors may be required to revise their manuscripts based on reviewers' comments. Revised manuscripts may undergo further evaluation by the reviewers or editorial team. The editor makes the final publication decision, considering the reviewers' recommendations and the journal's editorial standards.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

1. Title: Does the title accurately reflect the research objectives, subject matter, and scope of the study?
2. Abstract: Does the abstract clearly summarize the research objectives, methodology, principal findings, and scholarly contribution?
3. Introduction: Does the introduction establish the research context, identify a clear research gap, explain the significance of the study, and present its objectives? Does the manuscript demonstrate engagement with relevant scholarly literature and establish an appropriate theoretical or conceptual foundation?
4. Methodology: Are the research design, data collection procedures, sampling techniques (where applicable), and analytical methods clearly explained and appropriate to the research objectives?
5. Results and Discussion: Are the findings presented systematically and interpreted critically in relation to relevant theories, previous studies, and the research objectives
6. Conclusion: Does the conclusion synthesize the principal findings, address the research objectives, and highlight the study's theoretical or practical implications?
7. References and Citations: Are the references relevant, sufficient, and appropriately cited in accordance with the journal's guidelines?
8. Language and Presentation: Is the manuscript written in clear, coherent, and academically appropriate Indonesian or English?
9. Overall Scholarly Contribution: Does the manuscript offer an original and meaningful contribution to communication scholarship, particularly in digital media and media studies?

Reviewers should provide constructive comments identifying the manuscript's strengths, weaknesses, and areas requiring improvement.

Reviewer Guidelines

1. Objectivity and Independence: Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively and independently based on scholarly merit, methodological rigor, originality, and relevance to the journal's focus and scope. Personal, institutional, or other irrelevant considerations must not influence their assessments.
2. Constructive and Evidence-Based Feedback: Reviewers are expected to provide clear, specific, and constructive feedback that helps authors improve their manuscripts. Comments should identify substantive issues concerning theoretical foundations, methodology, data analysis, interpretation, and scholarly contributions. Reviewers should distinguish between major concerns affecting the validity or contribution of the research and minor issues related to clarity, organization, formatting, or presentation.
3. Confidentiality: All manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal or professional purposes. Manuscripts and review reports must not be shared with unauthorized parties.
4. Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may compromise their impartiality. Reviewers should decline an invitation when such conflicts prevent an independent and objective assessment.
5. Publication Ethics: Reviewers should notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, data fabrication, citation manipulation, or other potential violations of research and publication ethics. Whenever possible, support such concerns with appropriate explanations or evidence. 
6. Generative AI Policy for Reviewers: CHANNEL: Jurnal Komunikasi maintains strict ethical boundaries regarding the use of generative artificial intelligence in peer review. All manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers must not upload, share, or process manuscripts or review reports using generative AI tools. The use of generative AI to draft, structure, generate, revise, or otherwise assist in preparing peer-review reports is strictly prohibited. Peer review requires independent scholarly expertise, critical evaluation, and professional human judgment. These responsibilities cannot be delegated to generative AI systems. Reviewers remain fully accountable for the originality, integrity, confidentiality, and accuracy of their assessments. Any suspected violation of this policy may be investigated by the editorial team and may result in the rejection of the review report or discontinuation of the reviewer's involvement in the editorial process.

Reviewer Recommendation

After completing their evaluation, reviewers must select one of the following recommendations available in the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS):

1. Accept Submission: The manuscript meets the journal's scholarly and editorial standards and is suitable for publication without substantive revision
2. Revisions Required: The manuscript requires revisions that can be addressed by the authors without necessarily undergoing another round of external peer review. Reviewers should clearly identify the required improvements
3. Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires substantial revisions involving its theoretical framework, methodology, analysis, discussion, or other essential components. A revised manuscript must undergo further assessment before a publication decision can be made.
4. Resubmit Elsewhere: The manuscript may have scholarly merit but is not sufficiently aligned with the journal's focus and scope or readership. Submission to another journal is recommended.
5. Decline Submission: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scholarly, methodological, ethical, or editorial requirements, and its deficiencies are too fundamental to be addressed through revision.

Reviewers must provide written comments explaining their assessments and recommendations. Reviewers' recommendations are advisory, and the final editorial decision rests with the editor.

Revision and Editorial Decision

Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to address the reviewers' comments carefully and submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed. When a recommendation is not adopted, authors should provide an appropriate scholarly justification.

The editorial team evaluates revised manuscripts and may request further assessment by the original reviewers or additional reviewers when necessary. Editorial decisions are communicated to authors through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.

CHANNEL: Jurnal Komunikasi is committed to maintaining a fair, confidential, independent, and academically rigorous peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality scholarly research in digital media and media studies.