Peer Review Process

The peer review process ensures that Informasi publishes original, rigorous, and relevant research in communication and media studies. Every research article is assessed by the editors and by independent reviewers through double-anonymous peer review. All submissions, review reports, decisions, and correspondence are handled and recorded in the journal’s Open Journal Systems (OJS).

1. Stages of the Review Process
Stage Description
1. Administrative check The manuscript is checked against the Author Guidelines (length, English, template, APA 7th referencing, required statements) and screened for similarity with Turnitin by the editorial office. Manuscripts with more than 20% overall similarity are returned or declined. Incomplete manuscripts are returned to the authors for correction. The editorial office does not use generative AI tools to screen manuscripts.
2. Initial editorial evaluation The Editor-in-Chief assesses fit with the Focus and Scope, originality, scientific soundness, and language. A manuscript may be declined at this stage, without external review, if it lacks originality, has serious methodological flaws, or falls outside the scope. This decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
3. Assignment The Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to a Section Editor with relevant expertise and no conflict of interest. Manuscripts from authors at Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta are assigned to a Section Editor from another institution (see Section 5).
4. Peer review The handling editor invites independent reviewers whose expertise matches the manuscript. From Vol. 56 No. 2 (2026), every manuscript is reviewed by at least two reviewers, and a decision is made only after at least two review reports have been received. Reviewers are selected by the handling editor; members of the editorial board do not act as reviewers. Each reviewer is given a deadline when invited, and the expected timeline is set out in the Ownership and Management policy. If a reviewer withdraws or is unnecessarily delayed, another reviewer is invited. Authors are informed of significant delays and may withdraw their manuscript.
5. Decision Based on the reports, the handling editor recommends one of four decisions: accept, minor revision, major revision, or decline. Where two reports conflict, a third reviewer may be invited. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision, except where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest (see Section 5). The decision is sent to the authors with the reviewers’ comments.
6. Revision Authors submit a revised manuscript with a point-by-point response to the reviewers. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the original reviewers, who may accept the changes, request further revision, or recommend rejection.
7. Acceptance and production A letter of acceptance is issued only after the final decision to accept. Accepted manuscripts are copyedited, laid out, and proofread by the authors before publication with a DOI. From Vol. 56 No. 2 (2026), each article shows its dates of receipt, revision, acceptance, and publication.
2. Double-Anonymous Review

The journal uses double-anonymous (double-blind) review: reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, during and after the review. To support this:

  • authors submit an anonymised manuscript, with names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and identifying self-citations removed;
  • the editorial office checks the file and its metadata for identifying information before sending it to reviewers;
  • review reports are not signed or published; they are shared with the authors anonymously, together with the editor’s decision.
3. Review Criteria

Reviewers assess whether the manuscript:

  • is original in thought, method, and data, and makes a clear contribution to communication and media studies;
  • is methodologically sound;
  • presents results clearly, with conclusions supported by the evidence;
  • engages critically with relevant and current literature, especially primary sources;
  • follows ethical standards, including on plagiarism and research involving human participants.

Language editing is not part of peer review, but reviewers may comment on language and style. The handling editor checks linguistic accuracy in the final round and may return the manuscript to the authors for full language revision.

4. Responsibilities of Reviewers
Confidentiality Manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use them for their own purposes.
Use of AI From Vol. 56 No. 2 (December 2026), reviewers must not use generative AI tools to evaluate manuscripts or write review reports, and must not upload any part of a manuscript to such tools. See the Generative AI Policy.
Conflicts of interest Reviewers must decline a manuscript if they have a competing, collaborative, or institutional relationship with the authors. Reviewers from Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta are not assigned manuscripts by authors from the same institution. See Conflicts of Interest.
Objectivity and timeliness Reviews should be objective, constructive, and supported by arguments, and are submitted through OJS within the agreed deadline.
5. Editorial Integrity
  • Manuscripts from the editorial team. Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members follow the same double-anonymous review. They are handled by another editor with no conflict of interest, and the author has no access to their review records. The published article includes a note that the author is a member of the editorial board and was not involved in handling the manuscript.
  • Manuscripts from the publisher’s institution. Manuscripts from authors at Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta are handled by a Section Editor and reviewers from other institutions. Where the author is a colleague or student in the Editor-in-Chief’s own department, the Editor-in-Chief is not involved, and the Section Editor makes the final decision.
  • Research ethics. Research involving human participants must report informed consent and, where required by the authors’ institution, ethical approval. The editors may ask for supporting documents.
  • No fast track. The journal does not offer accelerated review or guaranteed acceptance for a fee, and does not work with third-party agents.
  • Content without peer review. Any editorials are written by the editors, are not peer reviewed, and are labelled as Editorial.
  • Records. All review reports, decisions, and correspondence are kept in OJS for at least five years.
6. Final Decision

Reviewers advise; the Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision to accept or decline a manuscript, except in the cases of conflict of interest described in Section 5, where the Section Editor decides. Appeals and complaints are handled as described in the Ownership and Management policy.