PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Stages at a Glance

No.	Stage	What happens	Estimated time
1	Initial evaluation	Check of scope, format, originality, and ethics	Before the manuscript is sent to reviewers
2	Assignment of reviewers	Invitation of independent reviewers and anonymization of the manuscript	Within 2 weeks
3	Review	Assessment of the manuscript and recommendation of a decision	Usually 2 weeks
4	Decision	Decision of the Editor in Chief: accept, revise, or reject	On average 2 to 3 months from submission to the first decision
5	Revision	Revision by the authors and a re check by the editors or reviewers	2 weeks for minor revision, 4 weeks for major revision
6	Publication	Copyediting, formatting, and publication in an issue	On average 3 to 6 months from acceptance to publication

These estimates are not a guarantee. The actual time depends on the availability of reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, and the number of rounds of review. The schedule of the issues is explained on the Publication Frequency page.

---

1. Initial Evaluation

When a manuscript is received, the editors check the four points below.

Point	What the editors check
Scope and focus	The manuscript fits the focus and scope of the journal and meets the basic conditions for publication.
Format	The manuscript follows the official template, the citation style, the Author Guidelines, and the Manuscript Preparation page. A manuscript that does not follow them is returned to the authors to be formatted again and submitted again.
Originality	The similarity of the text with other works is checked, as described in the Plagiarism Policy.
Ethics	For research with human participants, the manuscript states how permission and informed consent were obtained, as required by the Publication Ethics.

2. Assignment of Reviewers

• The editor invites at least two independent reviewers who are experts and have experience in the field of the research.
• The reviewers come from institutions that are different from the institution of the corresponding author.
• A reviewer decides whether to accept or decline the invitation on the basis of his or her expertise, availability, and any conflict of interest.
• The assignment of reviewers is targeted to be completed within two weeks.
• Researchers who would like to become reviewers can apply through the Call for Editor and Reviewer form. The reviewers of the journal are listed on the Reviewer Board page.

2.1 Anonymity

• Before a manuscript is sent to the reviewers, the editorial office removes the names and affiliations of the authors, the acknowledgments, and the statement of author contributions.
• This information is kept in a separate title page file, which the reviewers do not receive.
• The statements of funding and of conflicts of interest, which are given in the acknowledgments, are kept by the editor for internal use.
• Personal information in the properties of the file is also removed.

2.2 Conflicts of interest

• A reviewer or an editor who has a conflict of interest must decline the invitation or take no part in the decision, as stated in the Conflicts of Interest policy.
• A manuscript that is submitted by an editor or by a member of the editorial board is handled by another editor who is not involved in it. The author does not take part in the evaluation or in the decision.

---

3. Review

• The reviewers assess the scientific quality, the originality, the validity, and the relevance of the manuscript.
• The review is usually completed within two weeks. An extension is possible only when it is agreed with the editorial secretariat, as described in the Publication Ethics.
• The reviewers give constructive feedback and recommend that the manuscript is accepted, revised, or rejected.

Main questions of the reviewers

Part of the manuscript	Main questions
Title and abstracts	Do the title and the abstracts describe the study accurately and make the contribution clear?
Introduction	Are the background, the state of the art, the gap in knowledge, the novelty, and the purpose of the research clear?
Literature review	Are the theories and concepts relevant, current, and consistent with the research paradigm? Are the research questions stated clearly? In quantitative research, are the concepts defined and measurable?
Method	Are the design, the participants or informants, the instruments, and the analysis appropriate, and are they described in enough detail to be repeated? Are the validity and the reliability explained where they apply? Are permission and informed consent explained?
Results and discussion	Are the results correct and presented clearly? Does the discussion relate the results to earlier research and theory, and does it explain their meaning for communication studies and practice?
Conclusion	Is the conclusion supported by the results, and does it answer the research questions?
References	Are the references accurate, current, and in the requested style, and do they include the relevant earlier work?
Ethics and integrity	Is there any sign of plagiarism, of fabricated or manipulated data, of undisclosed use of generative AI, or of any other problem?

---

4. Decision

• The Editor in Chief makes the final decision on the basis of the comments of the reviewers and the conditions for publication.
• If the comments of the reviewers differ greatly, the academic editor may invite an additional reviewer before the decision is made.
• The decision and the comments are sent through the online system. The comments stay anonymous.
• Fees do not influence the decision. The decision is based on the quality and the relevance of the work. Information about fees is on the Author Fees page.

Decision	Meaning
Accept	The manuscript is accepted and goes on to copyediting and publication.
Minor revision	Small changes are needed. The authors have 2 weeks.
Major revision	Substantial changes are needed. The authors have 4 weeks.
Reject	The manuscript is not accepted for publication in MUKASI.

5. Revision Process

A manuscript that is accepted with revision must be revised and submitted again. The normal time limit is 2 weeks for a minor revision and 4 weeks for a major revision. The resubmission must contain the two items below.

No.	Required item
1	The revised manuscript, with the changes highlighted.
2	A response letter (rebuttal letter) that answers every comment and explains every change, or explains why a comment was not followed.

• A major revision is usually sent back to the same reviewers, so that they can check whether their comments have been addressed.
• For a minor revision, a further review is optional.
• Authors who need more time must tell the editor before the deadline.

---

6. Complaints and Appeals

An author who believes that the decision was based on an error or on an unfair review can write to jurnal.mukasi@gmail.com with the subject Appeal: [Manuscript Identifier].

• The letter of appeal must give the reasons clearly, provide evidence, and respond to the specific points of the decision.
• Disagreement alone is not a reason for reconsideration.
• An editor who was not involved in the first decision examines the appeal and may ask for another opinion.
• The decision on an appeal is final, and a manuscript can be appealed only once.
• Allegations of misconduct in the review process are handled in accordance with the Allegations of Misconduct policy.

7. Publication

• After acceptance, the authors send the final version of the manuscript.
• The manuscript is then copyedited and formatted.
• Changes to a published article follow the Correction and Retraction policy.
• Scientific comments after publication follow the procedure of Post Publication Discussion.

---

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement for Peer Review

MUKASI is committed to the standards of publication ethics and to the prevention of malpractice. The full duties of editors and reviewers are in the Publication Ethics. The main commitments are shown below.

Commitment	Meaning
Confidentiality	Information about the manuscript and the review is confidential for the editors, the reviewers, and the other parties who are involved.
Objectivity and impartiality	The review is based on quality, and it is free from personal bias and conflicts of interest.
Timeliness	The review is completed within a reasonable time, and the authors are informed quickly about the status of their manuscript.
Transparency and accountability	Reviewers give clear and reasoned comments, and the editors decide fairly.
Conflicts of interest	Editors and reviewers declare any potential conflict, and the journal keeps the evaluation free from bias.
Plagiarism and misconduct	Editors and reviewers watch for plagiarism, fabricated data, and other violations, and report them in accordance with the policy on Allegations of Misconduct.
Recognition of reviewers	The journal acknowledges the contribution of its reviewers.

---

Related Pages and Enquiries

---