Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the Asian Journal of Digital Public Relations (AJDPR) undergo a rigorous peer review process to ensure academic quality, originality, and relevance to the journal’s focus and scope. The journal applies a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

The peer review process consists of the following steps:

1. Initial Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system. The manuscript must follow the journal’s author guidelines, template, and ethical standards.

2. Editorial Screening

The editorial team conducts an initial screening to assess whether the submission:

  • fits the journal’s focus and scope,
  • complies with the journal’s formatting and submission requirements,
  • demonstrates sufficient academic quality and clarity, and
  • is free from indications of plagiarism or unethical publication practices.

At this stage, the Editor may decide to reject manuscripts that do not meet the minimum requirements or are outside the scope of the journal.

3. Assignment to Section Editor or Handling Editor

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to an appropriate editor who manages the review process and identifies qualified peer reviewers based on the manuscript’s topic and expertise required.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

Each eligible manuscript is sent to at least two independent reviewers under the double-blind review system. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • originality and significance of the study,
  • relevance to the field of digital public relations and strategic communication,
  • theoretical and methodological rigor,
  • clarity of analysis and discussion,
  • quality of writing and organization, and
  • contribution to scholarship and practice.

5. Reviewers’ Recommendations

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editor will make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Revise and resubmit (major revisions)
  • Reject

6. Author Revision

If revisions are required, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) along with reviewers’ comments. Authors are expected to revise the manuscript carefully and resubmit it within the specified deadline, accompanied by a clear response to the reviewers’ comments.

7. Second Review or Editorial Evaluation

For manuscripts requiring major revisions, the revised version may be sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation. For minor revisions, the handling editor may assess whether the revisions satisfactorily address the comments without sending the manuscript for another round of review.

8. Final Decision

The Chief Editor, based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the handling editor’s evaluation, makes the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.

9. Copyediting and Proofreading

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the copyediting and proofreading stage to ensure linguistic quality, consistency, citation accuracy, and formatting compliance prior to publication.

10. Publication

After the final editorial process is completed, the manuscript is scheduled for publication in the upcoming issue of AJDPR.

Additional Notes

  • The journal is committed to maintaining a fair, objective, and timely review process.
  • All reviewers are expected to treat manuscripts as confidential documents.
  • Authors may be asked to revise their manuscripts more than once, depending on the quality of revisions.
  • The final decision on all manuscripts rests with the Chief Editor.