Reviewer Toolkits: Assessment Form & Rubric Templates

 

To maintain high scholastic standards and ensure consistency during the double-blind evaluation process, NYIMAK: Journal of Communication provides a structured peer-review framework. Reviewers and authors may utilize these official templates to understand the core administrative and scientific evaluation baselines.

Download Official Guideline

1. Manuscript Assessment Form & Rubric (Ms. Word) Download File

Core Evaluation Criteria & Weight Matrix

Reviewers are required to assess manuscripts via the electronic OJS portal by evaluating the following components on a structured scale, complemented by rigorous qualitative commentary:

Evaluation Criteria Focus Areas & Scientific Indicators
1. Title & Abstract Clarity, density, and precision of the title. The abstract must concisely state the research gap, methodology, core arguments, and fundamental conclusions within the journal's word limit.
2. Introduction & Research Novelty Identification of a critical academic gap in communication studies. Presence of systematic research questions, explicit conceptual value, and a solid statement of scientific novelty.
3. Theoretical Framework Appropriateness and integration of communication theories or conceptual models. Critical synthesis of contemporary literature over the past 5-10 years.
4. Methodology Rigor Explicit disclosure of research paradigms, data collection pipelines, sampling techniques, and data analysis methods (e.g., framing, semiotics, text analysis, or quantitative surveys).
5. Findings & Deep Discussion Logical, non-repetitive presentation of analytical data. The discussion must cross-examine findings with previous empirical references to build novel scholarly arguments.
6. Conclusion & References Answers to research problems without over-generalizing. Recommendations for future studies, alongside strict adherence to the APA 7th referencing style and a minimum of 80% primary journal citations.
Ethical Note for Reviewers: By accepting the review invitation on the OJS dashboard, reviewers formally declare that they have no conflict of interest (financial, institutional, or personal) with the manuscript's authorship or substance. Reviewers must ensure that both quantitative scoring and qualitative textual recommendations are integrated directly within the OJS editorial system during the active evaluation cycle. Thank you for preserving NYIMAK's scientific integrity.