Peer Review Process

The process can be described as follows.

  1. An editor first reviews the submitted manuscript. It will be evaluated whether it is suitable for the Journal’s focus and scope, or whether it has a major methodological flaw and a high similarity score, using Turnitin and iThenticate. The decision is either rejected or accepted for review.
  2. The manuscript will be sent to two reviewers (Double Blind Review).
  3. Reviewers’ comments and suggested decisions are then sent to the Editor. The editors will evaluate the reviewer’s comments and make a suggested decision.
  4. The Editor will send the final decision to the corresponding author for necessary actions and responses. The decision is accepted, revised, or rejected.
  5. The Editor then evaluates the revised paper from the author for an accepted, revised, or rejected decision.
  6. The accepted manuscript then proceeded to copyediting and layout editing to prepare the camera-ready paper.

Review Outcomes

Utilizing feedback from the peer review process, the Editor will make a final publication decision. Decision categories include:

  • Reject - Rejected manuscripts will not be published, and authors will not have the opportunity to resubmit a revised version of the manuscript to this Journal.
  • Accept with Major Revision - The manuscript will be reviewed again after some major modifications are made.
  • Accept with Minor Revisions - Manuscripts receiving an accept-pending-revisions decision will be published in this Journal under the condition that minor modifications are made. An editor will review revisions to ensure necessary updates are made prior to publication.
  • Accept - Accepted manuscripts will be published in the current form with no further modifications required.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

If the Journal Editor has invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following items:

  • Reviewing manuscripts critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their research;
  • Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary;
  • Providing all required information within established deadlines;
  • Making recommendations to the Editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the Journal;
  • Declaring to the Editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review;
  • Reporting possible research misconducts;
  • Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reason;
  • Treating the manuscript as a confidential document;
  • Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript;
  • Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow they identify the authors;
  • Not identifying themselves to authors;
  • Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer;
  • Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original research;
  • Informing the Editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge;
  • Writing a review report in English only.
  • Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript.

What should be checked while reviewing a manuscript?

  • Novelty;
  • Originality;
  • Scientific reliability;
  • A valuable contribution to the scientific fields of language, literature, and local culture.
  • Adding new aspects to the existing field of study;
  • Ethical aspects;
  • Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to the authors’ guidelines;
  • References provided to substantiate the content.
  • Grammar, punctuation, and spelling;
  • Scientific misconduct.