Peer Review Process

Journal of Language Education and Literacy (JLEL) operates an online manuscript submission, editorial assessment, and peer-review system. All submitted manuscripts must comply with the journal's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, Publication Ethics, and submission requirements.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening before being considered for external peer review.

The editorial screening assesses:

  • Relevance to the Focus and Scope of JLEL;

  • Originality and potential scholarly contribution;

  • Overall academic and methodological quality;

  • Compliance with the journal's submission and formatting requirements;

  • Ethical compliance and research integrity; and

  • Similarity or textual overlap, where applicable.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's scope, minimum scholarly standards, ethical requirements, or submission requirements may be declined at this stage without external peer review.

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening proceed to external peer review.

2. Peer-Review Model

JLEL applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Reviewers should not have conflicts of interest that could reasonably compromise, or appear to compromise, the impartiality of the review.

If reviewer recommendations substantially differ, or if additional expertise is required, the editor may invite an additional reviewer before making an editorial decision.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their expertise, research experience, publication record, and suitability to evaluate the subject matter and methodology of the submitted manuscript.

In selecting reviewers, the editorial team considers potential conflicts of interest and seeks to ensure that the review is conducted independently, objectively, and fairly.

Reviewers who identify a relevant conflict of interest or who do not have sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript should decline the review invitation and inform the editor.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts according to relevant scholarly criteria, including:

  • Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope;

  • Originality and scholarly contribution;

  • Clarity and significance of the research objectives;

  • Adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework;

  • Appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology;

  • Quality of data analysis and interpretation;

  • Coherence between the findings, discussion, and conclusions;

  • Ethical considerations, where applicable;

  • Quality, relevance, and adequacy of references; and

  • Clarity, organization, and overall scholarly presentation.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and respectful comments that assist both the editor in reaching a decision and the authors in improving their manuscript.

5. Review Time

JLEL aims to complete the initial external peer-review process within approximately 4–8 weeks after a manuscript is sent to reviewers.

The actual review period may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the need for additional reviewers, and the number of revision rounds required.

Authors are informed of editorial decisions and reviewer comments through the journal's online submission system.

6. Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the editor evaluates the reviewers' reports together with the manuscript and may reach one of the following decisions:

  • Accept Submission — the manuscript is accepted for publication;

  • Revisions Required — the manuscript requires minor or major revisions before further editorial consideration;

  • Resubmit for Review — substantial revision is required and the revised manuscript will undergo another round of peer review; or

  • Decline Submission — the manuscript is not suitable for publication in JLEL.

Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not determine it automatically. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor based on the manuscript's scholarly quality, reviewer reports, journal policies, and relevant ethical considerations.

7. Revision and Re-Review

When revisions are requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a clear response to the reviewers' and editor's comments.

Authors should explain how each comment has been addressed or provide a scholarly justification when a suggested change has not been adopted.

Depending on the extent of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be evaluated by the editor or returned to the original or additional reviewers for further assessment.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

8. Similarity Screening

Submitted manuscripts may be screened using Turnitin or other appropriate similarity-detection tools as part of the editorial assessment process.

Similarity reports are evaluated by the editors based on the nature, source, extent, significance, and context of the identified textual overlap. A numerical similarity score alone does not constitute a determination of plagiarism.

Manuscripts containing plagiarism, inappropriate textual reuse, duplicate publication, or other serious integrity concerns may be rejected or handled in accordance with JLEL's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

9. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts and materials associated with the peer-review process are treated as confidential.

Reviewers must not share, distribute, reproduce, discuss, or use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.

Editors and editorial staff must also protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, and correspondence associated with the editorial process.

Reviewers, editors, and editorial staff must not upload submitted manuscripts, substantial portions of manuscripts, reviewer reports, or other confidential submission materials to generative AI or other external AI-assisted tools where doing so could compromise confidentiality, privacy, intellectual property, or the integrity of the peer-review process.

10. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any relevant financial, professional, institutional, collaborative, personal, or other relationships that could reasonably influence, or appear to influence, their assessment of a manuscript.

Reviewers with a relevant conflict of interest should decline the review invitation.

Editors with a relevant conflict of interest must not participate in the editorial decision and should assign the manuscript to another qualified editor.

11. Suspected Research or Publication Misconduct

If reviewers identify suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate citation practices, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other potential research or publication misconduct, they should confidentially report their concerns to the editor and provide relevant evidence where possible.

Reviewers should not independently investigate allegations or directly contact the authors regarding suspected misconduct.

JLEL will address credible ethical concerns in accordance with its Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

12. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance, ethical compliance, and overall contribution of the manuscript.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor retains responsibility for the final editorial decision.

Manuscripts submitted by editors or members of the Editorial Board must be handled independently by another qualified editor. The submitting editor or board member must not participate in reviewer selection, peer-review management, or the editorial decision concerning their own manuscript.