Reviewer Guidelines

Thank you for agreeing to review for Mdooter Journal of Communication and Digital Technologies. Your scholarly expertise and critical evaluation are essential to upholding the intellectual rigour, integrity, and international standing of the journal.

Mdooter Journal of Communication and Digital Technologies operates a rigorous double-blind peer review process in full alignment with the ethical standards established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Ethical Responsibilities and Confidentiality

Reviewers must adhere to the highest standards of professional integrity throughout the evaluation process:

  • Strict Confidentiality: Submitted manuscripts are privileged, confidential documents. Reviewers must not discuss, share, quote, or distribute any part of the manuscript, its title, or author details with anyone outside the editorial process.

  • Prohibition of Unauthorised Use: Reviewers must not utilise unpublished data, arguments, or insights from the manuscript for personal advantage, collaborative work, or third-party benefit.

  • Absolute Prohibition of Generative AI Tools: Reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading any portion of the manuscript, including abstracts or data tables, into Generative AI platforms or Large Language Models (such as ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, or similar software). This measure is mandatory to protect author intellectual property and maintain privileged confidentiality.

  • Impartiality and Objectivity: Reviews must be objective, balanced, and evidence-based. Judgments must not be influenced by author nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, geographical location, or theoretical perspective.

  • Conflict of Interest (COI): Reviewers must disclose any potential financial, personal, or professional conflicts of interest that could compromise an objective assessment. If you have collaborated with the authors within the past three years or hold any competing interest, please recuse yourself immediately.

  • Timeliness: Prompt evaluations ensure efficient scholarly communication. If you anticipate that you cannot meet the agreed deadline, please notify the editorial office immediately so an alternative reviewer can be engaged.

2. Guide to Conducting the Evaluation

Review reports should provide constructive, thorough, and actionable feedback structured across the following core dimensions:

A. Overall Assessment and Scope Alignment

  • Relevance to Scope: Does the manuscript fit squarely within the journal's twin pillars: Communication Studies and Digital Technologies?

  • International Scholarly Relevance: Does the manuscript offer conceptual, empirical, or methodological value to an international readership? If the study examines a single national context, are the findings framed within comparative or globally applicable theoretical literature?

  • Originality and Contribution: Does the work address a genuine gap, present novel findings, or offer significant advancements over existing literature?

  • Manuscript Length: Does the manuscript adhere to the journal's standard requirement of 5,000 to 8,000 words?

B. Specific Sectional Critique

  • Title and Abstract: Is the title concise, descriptive, and engaging? Does the abstract follow a structured format outlining the Purpose, Methodology, Key Findings, and Scholarly/Policy Value?

  • Introduction and Theoretical Framework: Is the core problem clearly contextualised? Are foundational and contemporary literature appropriately integrated? Is the theoretical or conceptual model sound, well-justified, and applied coherently?

  • Methodological Rigour: Is the research design transparent, appropriate, and detailed enough to permit replication? Are sampling procedures, instrumentation, validity/reliability measures, and ethical approvals clearly explained?

  • Results and Empirical Findings: Are empirical findings clearly reported without ambiguity? Are accompanying tables, figures, and statistical analyses appropriately constructed, accurate, and correctly interpreted?

  • Discussion: Does the discussion go beyond merely repeating results by rigorously linking findings back to the guiding theory and broader global literature?

  • Conclusions and Practical Value: Do the conclusions logically derive from the evidence presented? Are theoretical, practical, or policy implications articulated responsibly without overstating the data?

  • Referencing: Does the manuscript adhere strictly to the APA 7th Edition referencing style, ensuring citations are accurate, globally relevant, and complete?

3. Recommendations to the Editor

Reviewers should conclude their assessment with a definitive recommendation:

  • Accept as Submitted: The manuscript meets all international standards of quality, rigour, and presentation without requiring further amendments.

  • Accept with Minor Revisions: The manuscript is conceptually sound and methodologically robust, requiring only minor technical, textual, or structural refinements.

  • Major Revisions (Re-evaluate): The manuscript demonstrates significant potential but requires substantial empirical, analytical, or theoretical revisions. A revised version will undergo a second round of peer review.

  • Reject: The manuscript contains fundamental conceptual or methodological flaws, lacks scholarly originality, fails to demonstrate international relevance, or falls outside the journal's core aims and scope.

4. Structure of Reviewer Feedback

Reviewer reports submitted via the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform must be divided into two separate sections:

  • Comments to the Authors: Constructive, collegial, and numbered comments detailing specific strengths and areas requiring revision. Please cite line or page numbers to help authors implement revisions accurately.

  • Confidential Comments to the Editor: Private observations regarding ethical concerns, potential data fabrication, plagiarism flags, or undisclosed conflicts of interest. These comments will not be visible to the authors.

The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board make all final decisions regarding publication after considering reviewer evaluations. Reviewer identity remains strictly confidential at all stages.

LAST UPDATED: 4 October 2026