Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

The Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching (JLLLT) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, transparent, and timely peer-review process to ensure the publication of high-quality scholarly research. Every manuscript is evaluated solely on its academic merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical integrity, and contribution to the field, regardless of the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, or personal background.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editorial Office and the Editor-in-Chief.

During this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for:

  • relevance to the journal's Aims and Scope;
  • originality and scholarly contribution;
  • compliance with the journal's formatting requirements;
  • completeness of submission documents;
  • adherence to the journal's publication ethics and editorial policies.

Manuscripts that do not satisfy these basic requirements may be returned to the authors for revision before peer review or may be declined without external review.

The Editorial Office normally completes the initial screening within one to two weeks after submission.

2. Similarity Screening

Before entering peer review, all manuscripts are screened using iThenticate® similarity detection software.

The Editorial Office evaluates the similarity report together with the context of the matching text to identify possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, excessive textual overlap, or other forms of research misconduct.

In addition to similarity screening, the editorial team may consult scholarly databases and publicly available sources to verify the originality and publication history of submitted manuscripts.

Manuscripts that violate the journal's ethical standards may be rejected in accordance with the Publication Ethics and Plagiarism Policy.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening proceed to a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least three independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, publication record, subject expertise, and the absence of potential conflicts of interest.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on several criteria, including:

  • originality;
  • relevance to the journal's scope;
  • methodological rigor;
  • theoretical and practical contribution;
  • quality of analysis and interpretation;
  • clarity of presentation;
  • validity of conclusions;
  • compliance with ethical standards.

The peer-review process typically requires four to eight weeks, depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the extent of revisions required.

Where additional specialist expertise is required or conflicting recommendations arise, the Editor-in-Chief may invite one or more additional reviewers before making the final editorial decision.

4. Editorial Decision

After considering the reviewers' recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final editorial decision.

Possible editorial decisions include:

  • Accept – The manuscript is accepted without further revision.
  • Minor Revision – The manuscript is accepted subject to minor revisions.
  • Major Revision – The manuscript requires substantial revision and may undergo one or more additional rounds of peer review.
  • Reject – The manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific, editorial, or ethical standards.

The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to make the final publication decision based on the overall scholarly merit of the manuscript and is not obligated to follow reviewers' recommendations where justified by editorial or ethical considerations.

5. Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests should submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed Response to Reviewers explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

Authors are normally expected to submit revised manuscripts within:

  • two weeks for Minor Revision;
  • three to four weeks for Major Revision,

unless an extension has been approved by the Editorial Office.

Failure to submit the revised manuscript within the specified period without prior communication may result in the manuscript being treated as a new submission.

6. Editorial Timeline

JLLLT strives to ensure an efficient editorial process while maintaining the highest standards of academic quality and publication ethics.

Under normal circumstances:

  • Initial editorial screening is completed within 1–2 weeks after submission.
  • The peer-review process generally takes 4–8 weeks.
  • Authors are normally given 2 weeks for minor revisions and 3–4 weeks for major revisions.
  • The overall processing time from submission to the final editorial decision typically ranges from 8 to 12 weeks, although individual manuscripts may require additional time depending on reviewer availability and the extent of revisions.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading, layout editing, and publication in the earliest available issue.

7. Publication Ethics and Confidentiality

The peer-review process is conducted in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics, the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Principles, and other editorial policies adopted by JLLLT.

Editors and reviewers are expected to:

  • maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts;
  • evaluate manuscripts objectively and impartially;
  • disclose any potential conflicts of interest;
  • refrain from using unpublished materials for personal research or advantage;
  • uphold the highest standards of academic integrity throughout the editorial process.

Any suspected ethical misconduct identified during peer review will be handled in accordance with the journal's ethical policies.