Peer Review Policy

Indonesian Discourse on Communication, Democracy, and Political Movements (IDCDPM) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, independent, confidential, and ethical peer review process. The peer review system is designed to ensure the originality, scholarly quality, methodological rigor, relevance, and integrity of manuscripts submitted to the journal.

IDCDPM follows internationally recognized principles and best practices in scholarly publishing, including publication ethics and peer review principles promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and other relevant international standards for scholarly publishing.

The journal applies a double-anonymized peer review process for substantive scholarly research articles, whereby the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer review process aims to:

  • evaluate the originality and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts;
  • assess the relevance of manuscripts to the aims and scope of IDCDPM;
  • evaluate the theoretical and conceptual foundations of the research;
  • assess the appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology;
  • evaluate the validity and interpretation of empirical or documentary evidence;
  • assess the quality of analysis and argumentation;
  • identify methodological, theoretical, ethical, or scholarly weaknesses;
  • provide constructive recommendations for improving manuscripts; and
  • assist editors in making fair, independent, and evidence-based publication decisions.

Peer review serves as a fundamental quality-control mechanism of the journal. IDCDPM normally seeks at least two independent external reviewers for each substantive research article.

2. Type of Peer Review

IDCDPM uses a double-anonymized peer review system.

Under this system:

  • reviewers do not know the identity of the authors;
  • authors do not know the identity of the reviewers;
  • reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors;
  • authors must not attempt to identify reviewers; and
  • peer review reports are normally treated as confidential and are not published with the article.

The journal will maintain reviewer confidentiality unless a different review model is explicitly adopted and the reviewer has agreed to the disclosure of their identity.

The journal publicly describes its peer review model and procedures to ensure transparency in accordance with recognized principles of scholarly publishing.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to IDCDPM undergo an initial editorial assessment before external peer review.

The editorial screening may consider:

  • relevance to the journal's aims and scope;
  • compliance with author guidelines;
  • originality and scholarly significance;
  • methodological and theoretical suitability;
  • completeness of the manuscript;
  • quality and relevance of references;
  • potential plagiarism or inappropriate text similarity;
  • research and publication ethics;
  • potential conflicts of interest;
  • ethical treatment of human participants where applicable; and
  • overall suitability for external peer review.

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review if it:

  • falls substantially outside the journal's scope;
  • does not satisfy essential submission requirements;
  • lacks sufficient scholarly contribution;
  • contains fundamental methodological weaknesses;
  • raises serious ethical concerns; or
  • fails to meet the journal's basic academic standards.

Editorial screening decisions are made independently of considerations such as the author's nationality, institutional affiliation, political position, or academic status.

4. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts passing initial editorial screening are assigned to qualified external reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject and methodology of the manuscript.

Reviewers may be selected based on:

  • subject-matter expertise;
  • methodological expertise;
  • relevant academic publications;
  • research experience;
  • familiarity with the theoretical framework used in the manuscript;
  • independence from the authors; and
  • absence of conflicts of interest.

Depending on the manuscript, reviewers may have expertise in areas including:

  • communication studies;
  • political communication;
  • media and journalism studies;
  • digital communication;
  • social media and political discourse;
  • democracy and democratic institutions;
  • political movements;
  • social movements;
  • political sociology;
  • public sphere and deliberative democracy;
  • digital activism;
  • civic engagement;
  • political participation;
  • election communication;
  • political campaigning;
  • misinformation and disinformation;
  • media and political economy;
  • discourse analysis;
  • critical communication studies;
  • cultural and political studies; and
  • interdisciplinary social sciences.

The journal seeks to appoint reviewers who can provide independent and substantive scholarly assessments.

5. Reviewer Independence

The journal seeks to avoid assigning reviewers who:

  • are affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors;
  • have recently co-authored research with the authors;
  • have a close personal or professional relationship with the authors;
  • have a direct supervisory or subordinate relationship with the authors;
  • have a significant academic or professional conflict with the authors; or
  • have another circumstance that could reasonably compromise their objectivity.

Authors may recommend potential reviewers during submission. Such recommendations are advisory and do not guarantee reviewer selection.

The final decision regarding reviewer selection rests solely with the editor.

6. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide an objective, independent, confidential, timely, and constructive evaluation.

Reviewers should:

  • evaluate the manuscript objectively;
  • assess the originality and significance of its contribution;
  • evaluate the theoretical and conceptual framework;
  • assess the appropriateness of the research design;
  • evaluate the suitability of the methodology;
  • assess the quality and adequacy of evidence;
  • evaluate the coherence of the argument;
  • assess the interpretation of findings;
  • identify significant limitations;
  • identify relevant literature that should be considered where appropriate;
  • identify unsupported claims or methodological weaknesses;
  • provide constructive comments to assist the authors;
  • distinguish substantive concerns from minor editorial issues;
  • disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest;
  • maintain confidentiality; and
  • complete the review within the agreed timeframe.

Reviewers should assess the manuscript rather than the authors and should avoid discriminatory, personal, hostile, or defamatory comments.

7. Special Considerations for Political and Democratic Research

Because IDCDPM publishes research concerning communication, democracy, political movements, and public discourse, reviewers are expected to distinguish between scholarly evaluation and personal political disagreement.

Reviewers should not recommend rejection merely because they disagree with:

  • a political argument;
  • a theoretical perspective;
  • a political movement;
  • a policy position;
  • an ideological perspective; or
  • the political interpretation presented by the authors,

provided that the manuscript presents its arguments through appropriate scholarly methods, evidence, and reasoning.

Reviewers should instead assess:

  • whether claims are supported by evidence;
  • whether concepts are clearly defined;
  • whether theoretical assumptions are appropriately acknowledged;
  • whether alternative interpretations have been considered where relevant;
  • whether methodology is appropriate;
  • whether sources are reliable and adequately represented; and
  • whether conclusions follow logically from the evidence.

The journal seeks to protect scholarly independence, intellectual diversity, and legitimate academic disagreement while maintaining rigorous standards of evidence and methodology.

8. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted to IDCDPM are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals;
  • disclose information about the manuscript;
  • circulate unpublished material;
  • use unpublished ideas, arguments, data, or findings for personal or professional benefit;
  • reproduce substantial portions of manuscripts for purposes unrelated to peer review; or
  • contact authors directly regarding the manuscript without editorial authorization.

The confidentiality obligation continues after completion of the review.

Any suspected breach of confidentiality may be investigated by the editorial team and may result in removal of the reviewer from the journal's reviewer pool.

9. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.

Potential conflicts may arise from:

  • financial interests;
  • employment or institutional relationships;
  • previous or current collaboration;
  • personal relationships;
  • academic rivalry;
  • professional relationships;
  • supervisory relationships;
  • political or advocacy relationships that could reasonably compromise impartiality; or
  • other circumstances that may affect the reviewer's independence.

A reviewer should decline the assignment if a significant conflict of interest exists.

Editors are subject to the same principle. An editor who has a significant conflict of interest concerning a manuscript must not participate in the editorial decision-making process for that manuscript.

Where appropriate, another qualified editor will be assigned.

10. Political Neutrality and Editorial Independence

IDCDPM recognizes that research on democracy, political communication, and political movements may involve controversial, contested, or politically sensitive issues.

The journal does not reject manuscripts solely because their findings or arguments are politically controversial, provided that the research meets appropriate scholarly, methodological, and ethical standards.

Editorial decisions must be based on:

  • scholarly quality;
  • originality;
  • methodological rigor;
  • theoretical contribution;
  • evidence;
  • relevance to the journal's scope; and
  • research and publication ethics.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by:

  • political affiliation;
  • ideological position;
  • nationality;
  • ethnicity;
  • religion;
  • gender;
  • institutional affiliation;
  • academic status; or
  • personal or commercial interests.

11. Research Ethics and Human Participants

Research involving human participants, interviews, focus groups, surveys, ethnography, observation, or other forms of human-subject research must comply with applicable ethical requirements.

Where applicable, manuscripts should provide information regarding:

  • ethical approval;
  • informed consent;
  • participant confidentiality;
  • protection of vulnerable participants;
  • data protection;
  • anonymization or pseudonymization;
  • ethical handling of sensitive political information; and
  • other relevant research-ethics considerations.

Particular care should be taken when research involves:

  • political activists;
  • journalists;
  • whistleblowers;
  • political candidates;
  • public officials;
  • vulnerable communities;
  • minors;
  • individuals at risk of political persecution or retaliation; or
  • sensitive personal or political information.

Where disclosure of identities could expose participants to harm, authors should demonstrate that appropriate safeguards have been implemented.

12. Digital and Social Media Research

For manuscripts involving social media, online communities, digital activism, online political discourse, or other internet-based data, reviewers may consider:

  • the appropriateness of the data-collection strategy;
  • ethical treatment of online users;
  • distinction between public and private information;
  • anonymization where appropriate;
  • platform-specific limitations;
  • representativeness and sampling limitations;
  • potential algorithmic bias;
  • bot or automated-account detection where relevant;
  • data provenance;
  • reproducibility of analytical procedures; and
  • potential risks to individuals or communities identified in the research.

Researchers should avoid exposing personally identifiable information unnecessarily, particularly where publication could create risks to participants or other individuals.

13. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers and editors must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts.

Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, unpublished data, interview transcripts, tables, figures, supplementary materials, or other confidential manuscript content into publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence systems.

Reviewers should not use generative AI systems to generate, replace, or substantively compose peer review reports.

If AI-assisted tools are used for limited language or administrative purposes where permitted, the reviewer remains responsible for:

  • confidentiality;
  • accuracy;
  • integrity;
  • objectivity; and
  • compliance with the journal's policies.

The use of AI does not transfer responsibility for a peer review report from the reviewer to an automated system.

14. Peer Review Criteria

Reviewers are generally requested to assess manuscripts according to the following criteria.

A. Originality and Scholarly Contribution

  • Does the manuscript provide an original contribution?
  • Does it advance knowledge in communication, democracy, political movements, or related fields?
  • Is the research question significant?

B. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

  • Is the theoretical framework appropriate?
  • Are key concepts clearly defined?
  • Does the manuscript engage critically with relevant scholarship?
  • Are theoretical assumptions appropriately articulated?

C. Literature Review

  • Is the literature review relevant and sufficiently developed?
  • Does it engage with significant and recent scholarship?
  • Does the manuscript identify an appropriate research gap?
  • Does it establish the contribution of the study?

D. Methodology

  • Is the methodology appropriate to the research question?
  • Is the research design adequately explained?
  • Are data sources and sampling procedures appropriate?
  • Are analytical procedures sufficiently rigorous?
  • Are methodological limitations acknowledged?

E. Evidence and Analysis

  • Is the evidence credible and appropriately presented?
  • Does the analysis logically follow from the evidence?
  • Are interpretations adequately supported?
  • Are alternative explanations considered where relevant?
  • Does the manuscript avoid unsupported generalizations?

F. Communication and Discourse Analysis

For communication and discourse research, reviewers may assess:

  • the adequacy of the analytical framework;
  • the appropriateness of textual, visual, multimodal, or media data;
  • the transparency of coding or interpretive procedures;
  • the relationship between discourse and social/political context;
  • the validity of interpretive claims; and
  • the coherence between theoretical framework and analytical approach.

G. Democracy and Political Movements

Where relevant, reviewers may assess:

  • the conceptualization of democracy and political participation;
  • the treatment of political institutions;
  • the analysis of political movements;
  • the relationship between communication and political mobilization;
  • the role of media and digital platforms;
  • political participation and civic engagement;
  • the treatment of competing political perspectives; and
  • the empirical basis for claims about political behavior or social change.

H. Discussion and Conclusion

  • Are findings appropriately interpreted?
  • Are findings related to existing scholarship?
  • Are theoretical and practical implications discussed?
  • Are limitations clearly acknowledged?
  • Are conclusions supported by the evidence?

I. Academic Presentation

  • Is the manuscript logically organized?
  • Is the language clear and academically appropriate?
  • Are tables, figures, transcripts, or other research materials appropriately presented?
  • Are citations accurate and relevant?
  • Does the manuscript comply with journal formatting requirements?

J. Research and Publication Ethics

Reviewers should report concerns relating to:

  • plagiarism;
  • fabrication or falsification;
  • duplicate publication;
  • inappropriate citation;
  • citation manipulation;
  • unethical data collection;
  • violation of participant confidentiality;
  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • manipulation of images or digital materials; or
  • other forms of research or publication misconduct.

15. Reviewer Recommendation

Reviewers are normally asked to recommend one of the following outcomes:

  1. Accept
    The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.

  2. Minor Revision
    The manuscript requires limited revisions that do not fundamentally affect its scholarly contribution.

  3. Major Revision
    Substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

  4. Reject
    The manuscript has fundamental problems relating to originality, methodology, evidence, scholarly contribution, relevance, or ethics that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.

The reviewer's recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the editor.

16. Editorial Decision-Making

Editorial decisions are based on the overall scholarly quality of the manuscript and the available peer review evidence.

The editor may decide to:

  • Accept;
  • Accept with Minor Revision;
  • Request Major Revision; or
  • Reject.

The editor is not required to follow the recommendation of any individual reviewer.

Where reviewer recommendations substantially conflict, the editor may:

  • seek clarification from existing reviewers;
  • appoint an additional independent reviewer;
  • conduct an additional editorial assessment; or
  • make a decision based on the overall evidence.

17. Revision and Resubmission

When revisions are requested, authors must submit:

  • a revised manuscript; and
  • a detailed response to reviewers' comments.

Authors should respond to substantive comments individually and explain any disagreement with reviewers through appropriate scholarly reasoning.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to additional reviewers.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

18. Review Timelines

Reviewers are provided with a reasonable period to complete their evaluations.

Reviewers who are unable to complete a review within the agreed timeframe should notify the editorial office.

The editor may extend the deadline or appoint another reviewer to minimize unnecessary delays.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a specific period. Any review-time information published by IDCDPM should reflect the journal's actual editorial practice rather than constitute a guarantee of rapid publication.

19. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that the decision resulted from:

  • a significant factual or procedural error;
  • a substantial misunderstanding of the manuscript;
  • a serious conflict of interest;
  • demonstrably inappropriate or biased peer review; or
  • a significant departure from the journal's established editorial procedure.

Appeals must provide clear academic or procedural grounds.

An appeal should not simply restate disagreement with the editor's scholarly judgment.

The Editor-in-Chief will evaluate the appeal and may request an independent assessment where appropriate.

The decision following an appeal is normally final.

20. Complaints and Publication Ethics Concerns

IDCDPM takes concerns relating to peer review and publication ethics seriously.

Concerns may involve:

  • reviewer misconduct;
  • breach of confidentiality;
  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • plagiarism;
  • fabrication or falsification;
  • duplicate publication;
  • citation manipulation;
  • authorship disputes;
  • unethical research involving human participants;
  • misuse of confidential political or personal information; or
  • other forms of research and publication misconduct.

The journal will investigate such matters in accordance with applicable publication-ethics principles and relevant COPE guidance.

Where necessary, the journal may request information or clarification from authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, research ethics bodies, or other relevant parties.

21. Special Issues and Other Article Types

Special issues, review articles, conceptual papers, theoretical articles, policy analyses, commentaries, editorials, book reviews, and other article types may be subject to procedures appropriate to their nature.

Any significant deviation from the standard peer review procedure will be clearly identified on the journal website and/or in the relevant publication information.

Substantive scholarly research published through special issues remains subject to appropriate editorial oversight and external peer review.

22. Reviewer Recognition

IDCDPM recognizes the contribution of peer reviewers to the quality of scholarly communication.

Subject to confidentiality requirements, the journal may provide:

  • certificates of peer review;
  • annual acknowledgement of reviewers;
  • reviewer recognition through appropriate journal channels; or
  • other forms of recognition.

Public acknowledgement will not reveal which reviewer evaluated a particular manuscript unless the reviewer has explicitly agreed to disclosure.

23. Record Keeping

The journal maintains appropriate records of the peer review and editorial decision-making process.

Such records may include:

  • reviewer invitations;
  • reviewer identities;
  • review reports;
  • editorial decisions;
  • author responses;
  • revised manuscripts; and
  • relevant editorial correspondence.

These records are treated as confidential and may be used for:

  • editorial quality assurance;
  • publication ethics investigations;
  • internal journal evaluation;
  • reviewer performance assessment; and
  • indexing or audit purposes.

24. Continuous Improvement

IDCDPM periodically reviews its peer review procedures to ensure that they remain rigorous, fair, efficient, ethical, and appropriate for developments in communication, democracy, political studies, and interdisciplinary social sciences.

The journal may update this policy in response to developments in:

  • scholarly publishing;
  • research ethics;
  • peer review practices;
  • digital research methodologies;
  • artificial intelligence;
  • data protection; and
  • recommendations from recognized scholarly publishing organizations.

IDCDPM is committed to maintaining a peer review process that is:

  • Rigorous – manuscripts are evaluated by qualified experts;
  • Independent – reviewers are independent from authors;
  • Fair – decisions are based on scholarly merit;
  • Confidential – manuscript and reviewer information is protected;
  • Constructive – reviews help improve scholarly quality;
  • Ethical – conflicts and misconduct are appropriately addressed;
  • Transparent – peer review procedures are publicly explained; and
  • Politically independent – legitimate scholarly disagreement is not treated as a basis for rejection.