Smart: Journal of Media Communication and Social Dynamics (SMedia) employs a rigorous, double-blind peer review system to ensure the scholarly quality, originality, and relevance of all submissions. The key stages of this process are described below:

1. Submission and Initial Screening
   Upon receipt, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial appraisal to verify compliance with SMedia’s scope, formatting guidelines, and ethical standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these baseline requirements are returned to authors without further review.

2. Assignment to Handling Editor
   Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to a handling editor who is an expert in the relevant subfield. The handling editor oversees the peer review process and makes recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief.

3. Reviewer Selection
   The handling editor selects at least two independent experts with demonstrated expertise in the manuscript’s topic. Both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other throughout the review (double-blind). Potential conflicts of interest are carefully evaluated, and reviewers with any conflicts are excluded.

4. Review Criteria
   Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:
   – Originality and novelty of the research question
   – Theoretical grounding and conceptual clarity
   – Rigor and appropriateness of methodology (including PLS-SEM analysis where applicable)
   – Validity of findings and soundness of the argument
   – Contribution to the field of media communication and social dynamics
   – Quality of writing, structure, tables/figures, and reference accuracy

5. Review Timeline
   Reviewers are typically given four to six weeks to complete their reports. If reviewers require an extension, they may request additional time from the handling editor.

6. Decision and Revision
   Based on reviewers’ reports, the handling editor formulates a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. Possible decisions include:
   – Accept without revisions
   – Accept with minor revisions
   – Invite major revisions and resubmission
   – Reject
   When revisions are requested, authors receive anonymized reviewer comments and are expected to submit a detailed response (a point-by-point rebuttal) alongside the revised manuscript.

7. Final Evaluation
   Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated either by the original reviewers or by the handling editor. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on the handling editor’s recommendation.

8. Ethical Considerations
   JMCSD adheres to COPE guidelines. Plagiarism screening is conducted prior to peer review. Any ethical concerns raised during review (e.g., data fabrication, duplicate publication) are investigated in accordance with the journal’s misconduct policy.

This structured, double-blind process upholds SMedia’s commitment to publishing high-quality, impactful research in media communication and social dynamics.