Virtual space and social media studies

Peer Review Process and Decision-Making Stages in the Journal of Virtual Space and Social Media Studies

The peer review process in the Journal of Cyberspace and Social Media Studies serves as a quality control mechanism. In this process, experts in the relevant research field evaluate submissions scientifically and confidentially, without knowing the authors’ identities. The goal is to ensure the high quality of the articles. However, the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript does not rest with the reviewers. It is made by the editorial board, based on the reviewers’ evaluations and the manuscript’s overall merit, with the editor-in-chief overseeing the final decision.

Once a manuscript is uploaded by the author, it undergoes an initial screening. At this stage, some submissions may be rejected due to lack of thematic relevance or failure to meet basic criteria. Only manuscripts that meet the following conditions are sent for peer review:

1. Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope
2. A clear cultural-communication approach, articulated in both the abstract and the main text
3. Sufficient scientific and content quality for review
4. Use of up-to-date and credible international sources
5. Demonstrated originality and innovation
6. Compliance with the journal’s formatting and writing guidelines

*** Manuscripts that pass the initial screening and are deemed suitable for comprehensive review are sent to two reviewers, maintaining confidentiality and anonymity. Reviewers do not know the authors’ identities, and vice versa. Based on the review outcomes and the editorial board’s judgment, some manuscripts may be sent to up to four reviewers. In such cases, the review process may take more than two months.

After receiving the reviewers’ reports and any revisions made by the author, the editor-in-chief and editorial board evaluate the manuscript.

Final Decision Outcomes:

1. Accepted without any changes and published as-is (Acceptance)
2. Accepted with minor revisions suggested by the reviewers or editorial board (Acceptance)
3. Conditionally accepted with major revisions: The journal will publish the article only after the author implements the recommended changes. The revised manuscript must be re-uploaded and re-evaluated for quality (Conditional Acceptance)
4. Rejected: The journal will not publish the manuscript due to low content quality, concluding that even after major revisions, it would not meet the required standards for publication