Review Process Policy

UltimaComm : Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi

1. Policy Statement

UltimaComm: Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi is committed to a rigorous, fair, transparent, and independent peer-review process. Peer review is intended to assess the scholarly contribution, originality, theoretical coherence, methodological adequacy, ethical integrity, and clarity of submitted manuscripts.
The journal's editorial process comprises preliminary editorial screening, external peer review, editorial evaluation, revision where required, and final editorial assessment. Progression through one stage does not guarantee acceptance or publication.
All manuscripts are evaluated according to the journal's scope, author guidelines, publication-ethics requirements, and scholarly standards. Editorial decisions must not be influenced by an author's institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, seniority, personal beliefs, professional relationships, or ability to pay publication fees.

2. Initial Submission and Editorial Screening

All manuscripts must be submitted through the journal's designated online submission system and comply with the applicable submission requirements.
The editorial team conducts an initial screening to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for further consideration. This assessment may include:
a. Relevance to the aims and scope of UltimaComm.
b. Compliance with the journal's manuscript template and submission guidelines.
c. Adequacy of the manuscript's scholarly contribution and argumentation.
d. Originality and appropriate acknowledgment of existing scholarship.
e. Compliance with reference, citation, and formatting requirements.
f. Traceability and accuracy of cited sources.
g. Appropriate disclosure of funding, competing interests, and relevant AI use.
h. Preliminary assessment of research ethics and possible publication misconduct.
i. Readiness for external review, including sufficient methodological and evidentiary detail.
Similarity-checking software and other editorial screening tools may be used to support this assessment. Their outputs are not treated as conclusive evidence of misconduct without appropriate contextual evaluation.
A manuscript that does not meet the journal's requirements may be declined at this stage or returned for pre-editorial revision before external review.
Where substantial pre-editorial revision is requested, the journal may specify a deadline, ordinarily seven calendar days unless otherwise communicated. Failure to respond or provide the requested revision may result in closure or decline of the submission. A subsequent submission may be treated as a new submission.
Passing initial screening means only that the manuscript may proceed to the next stage. It does not constitute acceptance or a guarantee of publication.

3. Similarity Screening Using Turnitin

All manuscripts submitted to UltimaComm: Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi will be screened using Turnitin to assess the extent of textual similarity with existing published and available sources. This screening is conducted as part of the journal's initial editorial assessment and is intended to identify potential plagiarism, unattributed textual borrowing, excessive text recycling, and other issues requiring further editorial examination.
The journal uses a maximum similarity threshold of 15% as an initial screening criterion. However, the similarity score is not, by itself, a definitive measure of plagiarism or research misconduct. Editorial assessment will consider the nature, source, context, and extent of the identified overlap, including properly cited quotations, references, commonly used methodological expressions, and other legitimate textual similarities.
Manuscripts exceeding the threshold may be returned to the authors for clarification or revision, subjected to further editorial investigation, or rejected where substantial unattributed overlap or other serious concerns are identified. Manuscripts below the threshold may also be investigated if the similarity report reveals specific evidence of potential plagiarism or inappropriate textual reuse.
Authors are responsible for ensuring that all borrowed ideas, quotations, data, and other intellectual contributions are appropriately attributed. Passing the Turnitin screening does not guarantee acceptance or establish that a manuscript is free from plagiarism.
The editorial team will interpret Turnitin reports in conjunction with the manuscript's scholarly content, citation practices, and applicable publication-ethics standards before making a decision.

4. Assignment to an Editor

A manuscript that passes initial screening will be assigned to an editor with relevant scholarly expertise and no material conflict of interest.
The handling editor oversees the review process, identifies suitable reviewers, evaluates the resulting reports, and formulates an editorial recommendation.
If the assigned editor has a conflict of interest, the manuscript must be reassigned to an independent editor. The editor-in-chief must also recuse themselves when a relevant conflict exists, with responsibility transferred to an appropriately authorized independent decision-maker.

5. External Peer Review

Manuscripts that proceed beyond editorial screening are evaluated by external peer reviewers selected according to their subject expertise, methodological competence, scholarly experience, and ability to provide an independent assessment.
Reviewers are asked to assess, as applicable:
a. Originality and significance of the scholarly contribution.
b. Relevance and adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework.
c. Clarity of the research problem, questions, and objectives.
d. Appropriateness and transparency of the research design and methodology.
e. Adequacy of evidence, analysis, and interpretation.
f. Coherence between claims, supporting evidence, and conclusions.
g. Engagement with relevant and current scholarship.
h. Ethical treatment of research participants and data.
i. Accuracy of citations and attribution.
j. Clarity of presentation and suitability for the journal's readership.
Reviewers should provide reasoned, constructive, and evidence-based recommendations. They must disclose competing interests, maintain confidentiality, and report credible concerns about possible research or publication misconduct to the handling editor.
The journal will not ask reviewers to assess a manuscript on the basis of personal preference or agreement with its conclusions. Scholarly disagreement is legitimate when arguments and evidence are appropriately presented.

6. Anonymity and Confidentiality

The journal applies a double-anonymous peer-review model: authors and reviewers are not ordinarily informed of one another's identities through the review process.
Authors should ensure that the manuscript and supplementary materials do not unnecessarily reveal their identities where this could compromise anonymity. Reviewers must not attempt to identify authors for purposes that undermine the review process.
Absolute anonymity cannot be guaranteed, particularly when research materials, preprints, specialist subject matter, or public disclosures make identification possible.
Editors, reviewers, and other individuals with access to submitted manuscripts must maintain confidentiality. Manuscripts and unpublished information must not be distributed, used for personal advantage, or uploaded to external AI systems in ways that compromise confidentiality or intellectual property without appropriate authorization.

7. Editorial Decisions

Following external peer review, the handling editor evaluates the reviewers' reports together with the manuscript's scholarly quality, ethical compliance, and suitability for the journal.
Possible editorial decisions include:
Accept. The manuscript meets the journal's scholarly and ethical requirements and may proceed to any remaining editorial and production checks.
Minor revision. The manuscript requires limited revisions that do not fundamentally alter its research design or central argument.
Major revision. Substantial revisions are required to address significant concerns regarding argumentation, theoretical framing, methodology, analysis, evidence, reporting, or presentation.
Reject. The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards, falls outside its scope, contains unresolved substantive problems, or is otherwise unsuitable for publication.
A revise-and-resubmit decision does not guarantee acceptance. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by other qualified reviewers when necessary.
The editor-in-chief or appropriately authorized editor makes the final editorial decision. Reviewer recommendations inform, but do not independently determine, the outcome.

8. Revision and Author Response

When revision is requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response addressing the editor's and reviewers' comments.
The response should indicate:
a. Each substantive comment received.
b. The action taken in response.
c. The location of the relevant change in the revised manuscript.
d. A reasoned explanation where a recommendation has not been adopted.
Authors are expected to respond professionally and substantively. They may disagree with a reviewer's recommendation, provided that the disagreement is explained through appropriate scholarly reasoning and evidence.
The editorial team may request further revision or clarification if the response does not adequately address significant concerns.
Unless otherwise communicated, authors may be given a specified revision deadline. The applicable deadline will be communicated with the decision letter, and delays may affect the editorial schedule.

9. Post-Review Editorial and Language Assessment

After peer review and the required revisions, the manuscript undergoes further editorial evaluation to determine whether the reviewers' substantive concerns have been adequately addressed.
UltimaComm publishes manuscripts in English. A supplementary language assessment may therefore be conducted to evaluate academic English, clarity, coherence, and conformity with the journal's language and style requirements.
Language assessment is an editorial quality-control measure and is not a substitute for scientific or scholarly peer review. It does not independently establish the validity of a research design or the reliability of findings.
Where additional revisions are required, authors will be informed of the requested changes and the applicable deadline.

10. Final Acceptance and Production

A manuscript is accepted only after the required editorial and peer-review procedures have been completed and the authorized editor has determined that it meets the journal's publication standards.
An acceptance decision does not remove the obligation to comply with final production requirements, including copyediting, proof correction, bibliographic verification, and the journal's publication agreements.
The journal may request clarification or corrective action if a material ethical or integrity concern arises before publication, even after a provisional or earlier favorable assessment.
Publication timing depends on editorial workload, reviewer availability, the extent and timeliness of revisions, production requirements, and the journal's publication schedule. The journal does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a fixed period.

11. Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Independence

Editors and reviewers must disclose relevant competing interests and decline or relinquish assignments when impartiality may reasonably be compromised.
Authors must disclose relevant financial, institutional, personal, or professional interests in accordance with the journal's Conflict of Interest Policy.
The editorial process remains independent of publication fees, commercial considerations, institutional pressure, and citation metrics. Payment of an article processing charge, where applicable, does not guarantee acceptance or confer preferential treatment.

12. Research Ethics and Publication Integrity

The journal may request clarification or supporting documentation concerning research ethics approval, informed consent, data provenance, authorship, source accuracy, competing interests, or the use of generative AI.
Credible concerns about plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, manipulated evidence, fraudulent peer review, or other forms of publication misconduct will be handled under the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
Where necessary, the journal may suspend the editorial process while a material concern is assessed. Editorial action will be based on the available evidence and will distinguish deliberate misconduct from honest error and correctable deficiencies.

13. Complaints and Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by providing specific reasons and evidence of a material factual error, a significant misunderstanding of the manuscript, a procedural irregularity, or an unmanaged conflict of interest that may have affected the decision.
Appeals will be assessed by the editor-in-chief or an appropriately authorized independent editor who was not responsible for the original decision and has no relevant conflict of interest.
Disagreement with an editorial judgment alone does not guarantee reconsideration. The journal will communicate the outcome and the principal reasons for its determination.
Complaints concerning reviewer conduct or editorial procedures may be submitted through the journal's official editorial contact channels and will be handled fairly and confidentially.

14. Review Timelines

The duration of peer review varies according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the extent of revisions, and the time required for editorial evaluation.
The journal aims to manage submissions efficiently while preserving the rigor and independence of scholarly assessment. Authors will be informed of significant delays where appropriate.
Any indicative turnaround times published elsewhere on the journal website must reflect actual editorial performance and should not be interpreted as a guarantee of acceptance or publication.

15. Policy Review

UltimaComm will review this policy periodically to ensure that its peer-review procedures remain consistent with recognized publication-ethics standards and the journal's actual editorial practices.
Guiding principle: Peer review is a mechanism for improving and evaluating scholarship, not a guarantee of acceptance. UltimaComm is committed to an editorial process that is independent, rigorous, transparent, confidential, and accountable.