The Editorial Advisory Board has been purposely diversified geographically to let in new streams of thought from the top-ranking centres of media and communication research in the world. Under their overall advisory guidelines, the journal has been able to gain visibility among media and communication researchers in different parts of the world.

Editorial Advisory Board Policy

• Contribute to the management and development of the Journal.
• Update reviewers and authors with new policies and guidelines.
• Ensure the protection of individual data and maintain confidentiality.
• Elevate Journal's reputation among the affiliated academic community.

Roles and Responsibilities

• The Executive and Managing Editors are responsible for the quality of papers published in the journal.
• They are also responsible for verifying the originality of papers received for review and publication by checking for plagiarism in the submissions.
• They are responsible for ensuring the regularity of its publication on a quarterly basis
• They keep in touch with researchers in different parts of the world to source quality papers
• They are in charge of the entire process of the review and publication of the journal beginning with the receipt of the various submissions, their codification, and dispatch to reviewers for their comments/observations to the formatting, printing and final publication of the journal as per the editorial standards of the journal
• They annually review the peer review process and editorial policy.
• They are also responsible for the correspondence with authors of the submissions and accepted papers.
• The Executive Editor is also responsible for writing the editorial for each issue.

Mass Communicator solicits original articles and papers on contemporary media and communication issues by academicians, communication practitioners and researchers, working in any part of the world. The journal lays strong emphasis on publishing papers which make contribution to theory building or theory interrogation. As the paper has to go for blind peer review, authors are advised not to mention their identity on the body of the paper, but on a separate sheet. Every paper is vetted for original content with the plagiarism check software before it may be sent for blind peer review to reviewers. The original content in a paper must not be less than 75%, excluding the references.

Guidelines for Authors

• Each manuscript must be accompanied with an abstract of 150-200 words.
• The manuscript should not exceed 5000 words.
• The font should be 10 points and Times New Roman with 1 line spacing.
• The author's name, designation, affiliation, and complete address with cell phone number must be provided on a separate sheet.
• All drawings, graphs, and tables should be provided on separate pages.
• Book review should include name of the author, publisher, price and year of publication and ISBN number. If any references are used, details of the same have to be provided.
• Citations in the text should be written as (Hossain, 2018).
• References must be given at the end of the paper and must conform to APA Style Sheet.
• Articles submitted for consideration have to be accompanied with a declaration by the author/authors that they have not published or submitted the manuscript for publication elsewhere.
• Editorial decisions are communicated within a period of 8 weeks of the receipt of manuscript.
• In case the reviewer suggests revision of the manuscript, the author has to modify the manuscript and submit the revised manuscript within 7-10 days.

Articles must be sent by e-mail at masscommunicator@jagannath.org

Every submission should adopt the following format:

Title: The Title should be precise and relevant. It should give a brief idea of the manuscript.

Authors: Authors should give details of institution's name and address with designation, email id, mobile number and postal address for sending hard copy of the journal.

Abstract: The abstract should not exceed 200 words. The abstract should give a brief idea of the objectives, research questions raised, findings and implications. Abstracts of manuscript can be viewed at www.indianjournals.com

Keywords: The number of keywords should be between 6 and 10 words.

Review of Literature: It should cover the work done by previous authors and project the gaps in literature and the reasons for taking up the research study.

Research Design and Methods: This section should provide the theoretical framework of the research and the research design and methods used to achieve the objectives of the study.

Results and Discussion: This section should present the findings of the study and also interpret and evaluate them in the context of the theory.

Conclusion: The conclusion should summarize the research findings in the context of the objectives of the study and also give, if need be, suggestions for further research in the area.

Tables and Figures: Tables and Figures should be self-explanatory and serially numbered according to the text. There should be a title above the Tables and Figures and sources should be clearly written below the table. If a figure has already been published elsewhere, then the original source has to be mentioned along with the written permission from the copyright holder.

Plagiarism: Authors should contribute their original work. To verify the originality of the research paper submissions, we use plagiarism software and the authors are bound to adhere to it.

About the Reviewers

Mass Communicator has a panel of experts on its Board of Reviewers, who evaluate research contributions in different areas of media and communication. They are responsible for maintaining the reliability, validity and quality of research contribution of authors through effective blind peer-review process. The whole process depends on the trust and involvement of the participating reviewers. We appreciate the contribution of reviewers in terms of their valuable comments and suggestions adding value to the research papers.

Check List for the Reviewers

Reviewer(s) review the manuscripts sent to them on the basis of the following parameters:

• The reviewers shall verify whether all key sections have been covered in the manuscript: Abstract, Review of Literature, Research Design and Methods, Results and Discussion, and Conclusion.
• Title of the Manuscript:Whether the title describes the content of the research and it has been phrased briefly
• Originality:Is the paper, according to the reviewer, original? Does it provide some new information to justify that it is of standard publishable quality?
• Review of Literature:Has the author of the paper provided explanation of work conducted in the relevant research area? Have gaps in literature been identified? Has the author explained the reason why he/she has undertaken the present research?
• Research Design and Methods:The reviewer needs to evaluate whether the author has clearly explained the reasons for the choice of the research design and methods for the study.
• Results and Discussion:The reviewers need to evaluate whether the findings of the study have been presented with logical consistency and coherence. They also need to see if the findings have been interpreted critically in the light of the theoretical framework of the study.
• Conclusion:The reviewers will also analyse if the conclusions drawn are consistent with the findings of the study.
• Tables and Graphs:The reviewers will also see if the tables and graphs given in the study are in accordance with the data discussed in the running text.
• References:The reviewers will also check if the authors have followed the APA Style for references.
• Accept/Reject/Minor Revision/Major Revision is clearly provided by the reviewer with the reasons. In case of revision the parameters and sections are clearly mentioned.

Reviewers' Final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of the manuscript should be in one of the three categories:

• Rejected due to poor quality, or out of the scope of the journal;
• Accepted without revision;
• Accepted with revision (either major or minor).

In the case of, ''accepted with revision category'', reviewers need to clearly identify and highlight what revision is required to the editor and as well as provide their acceptance for further reviewing the same manuscript.

Peer Review is a collaborative process that allows manuscripts submitted to a journal to be evaluated and commented upon by independent experts within the same field of research. The evaluation and critique generated from peer review process provide authors with feedback to improve their work and critically allows the editors to assess the manuscript's suitability for publication in the journal. Peer review helps to ensure that the published research is accurate, trustworthy and meets the highest standards of research within a given field. The practice of peer review is to ensure that good research articles are published. It is an objective process for good scholarly publishing and is carried out for Mass Communicator also. Our reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the highest standards of quality control and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure below:

Initial manuscript evaluation

The Executive and Managing Editors first evaluate all manuscripts. The exceptional manuscripts are accepted at this stage itself. Those rejected at this stage have either serious flaws or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those meeting the minimum criteria are passed on to an expert for review.

Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage are normally informed within 2 weeks of receipt.

Ethical issues are taken care of by the editorial team before sending the manuscript to the panel of reviewers

Type of Peer Review

The journal employs blind reviewing where both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous throughout the process.

Selection of Reviewers

The reviewers have been selected to achieve the objective of improving the manuscripts by providing a deeper insight into the research topics and content. The reviewers give inputs that help to make the author aware about the shortcomings in the research and provide clarifications about the subject.

Peer Review Process and Reviewer reports

The reviewers are given full autonomy to appraise and provide significant criticism with the intention that the researcher can revise and incorporate the suggested changes to enhance their research contribution.

The reviewers evaluate whether the manuscript:

• Is original
• Is methodologically sound
• Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
• Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
• Provides references correctly to previous relevant work

Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit the manuscripts. Language correction is not a part of the peer review process.

How long does the review process take?

The manuscript is to be reviewed within 30 days. All our reviewers also sign a conflict of interest statement. Revised manuscripts received from the authors are usually returned to the initial reviewers. Reviewers, if required, may ask for more than one revision of a manuscript.

Executive Editor's Decision is final

The Executive Editor is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.

Every article submitted to the journal is subjected to strict plagiarism check.

Subscription Rates for both Print and Online