Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

CHANNEL: Jurnal Komunikasi is dedicated to discuss, explore, and disseminate the latest issues and development of communication, particularly those related to media studies and digital media.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

An editor first reviews the submitted manuscript. Editors will evaluate in the office whether it is suitable for CHANNEL: Jurnal Komunikasi's focus and scope or has a major methodological flaw and similarity score by using iThenticate.

At least two-three people reviewers will review each article following the scope of the journal.

Editors will evaluate the suggested decision in an editorial board meeting. Afterward, the editor will send the final decision to the corresponding author.

 

Publication Frequency

CHANNEL Jurnal Komunikasi is published twice a year, in April and October.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal is an open-access journal that provides immediate, worldwide, barrier-free access to all published articles' full text without charge readers or their institutions for access. Readers have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full text of all articles in CHANNEL Jurnal Komunikasi.

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries. It permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration.

 

Publication Frequency

CHANNEL: Jurnal Komunikasi is published twice a year in April and October.

 

Publication Ethics

This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in our journals, including the authors, the editors, the peer-reviewers, and the publisher. 

Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting Standards: 
    Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. The author should present underlying data accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
     
  2. Data Access and Retention: 
    Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
     
  3. Originality and Plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works. If the authors have used the work and/or words, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
     
  4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication: 
    An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
     
  5. Acknowledgment of Sources: 
    Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
     
  6. Authorship of the Paper: 
    Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project and should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper. All co-authors have seen and approved the paper's final version and have agreed to its submission for publication.
     
  7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 
    All authors should disclose any financial or another substantive conflict of interest in their manuscript that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. Authors should disclose all sources of financial support for the project.
     
  8. Fundamental errors in published works: 
    When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
     
  9. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: 
    If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment with any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Duties of Editors

  1. Fair Play: 
    An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
  2. Confidentiality: 
    The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
  3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 
    Authors must not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript in an editor's own research without the author's express written consent.
  4. Publication Decisions
    The editor board journal is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the journal's editorial board's policies and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
  5. Review of Manuscripts: 
    The editor must ensure that the editor for originality initially evaluates each manuscript. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and indicate which parts of the journal are peer-reviewed. The editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

Duties of Reviewers

  1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions:
    Peer review helps the editor make editorial decisions, and the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
  2. Promptness: 
    Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
  3. Standards of Objectivity: 
    Reviewers should conduct reviews objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  4. Confidentiality: 
    Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: 
    Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
     
  6. Acknowledgment of Sources: 
    Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. The relevant citation should accompany any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported. A reviewer should also call the editor's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper they have personal knowledge of.