JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE STUDIES

Peer-review

Double Blind Peer Review Process

    The double-blind review process for the Journal of Language Studies is summarized in the following steps:

1. Manuscript Submission:

    The submitting/corresponding author must submit the manuscript that is related to the Journal  of Language Studies system online. The submitting/corresponding author is responsible for the manuscript during the submission and peer-review process; and it must be ensured that all eligible co-authors, who qualify for the authorship criteria, are included in the authors’ list , and that the submitted version has been read and approved.

2. Editorial Office Evaluation:

          The editorial office of the Journal of Language Studies verifies the style, composition, and arrangement of the manuscript according to the author’s guidelines for the journal to ensure that it contains the required sections and styles. At this stage or point, the scientific quality of the manuscript is not reviewed.

3. Evaluation of the Editor-in-Chief and Members of the Editorial Staff:

            The editor-in-chief sends the submitted manuscript to the editorial member, who is familiar with its scientific subject, and reviews it blindly and comprehensively. The editor-in-chief and editorial member verify that the manuscript is appropriate for the journal and that it is authentic and of sufficient importance. If the manuscript passes this step, the editorial member suggests two reviewers. If not, the manuscript is rejected without further review.

4. Invitation of Arbitrators:

           The editor-in-chief sends invitations to potential reviewers whom he thinks are appropriate for the manuscript. When responses are received, further invitations are issued. If necessary, until the two required admissions are accepted.

5. Responding to Invitations:

           Prospective reviewers consider the invitation based on their experience, conflict of interest, and availability. Then they accept or reject it. If possible, upon refusal, they may also suggest alternative reviewers.

6. Review Procedure:

            The double-blind review process generally involves an exchange between  the editor-in-chief and the team of reviewers, also known as referees. After the reviewers receive the manuscript from the editor, they read it deeply and comprehensively and provide individual criticism, usually within five days.

In their Criticism of the Review, Referees

• Commenting on the Scientific validity, identifying scientific errors, assessing the design, methodology, and statistics used.
• Judge the significance by evaluating the relevance and validity of the results.
• Determining the originality of the work based on its progress in the scientific field.
• Evaluate the relevance and recentness of references and identify missing or inaccurate references.
• Recommend publication or rejection of the manuscript. Editors do not have to heed this recommendation, but they do in most cases.

          Then send the review to the journal with recommendations: to accept, reject, or submit it elsewhere, or request a review that is usually marked either as major or minor before reconsidered.

7. The Journal Evaluates Reviews:

           The editor-in-chief closely monitors all incoming reviews before making a comprehensive decision. In the event of conflicting opinions, the editor-in-chief usually sends the manuscript to a third reviewer for confirmation.

8. Revision and Submission

        The editor-in-chief sends the decision through the electronic journal system to the submitting/corresponding author, including any relevant comments from the editor and reviewers, in a way that completely hides the names of authors and arbitrators. The corresponding author needs to go through and consider the reviewers’ comments carefully, as the review will be based largely on those comments. Authors also need to respond to each comment point by point to indicate the change, whether a review can be done or sufficient information is provided correctly or not, after completion from the review, the corresponding author submits the revised paper back to the journal.

9. Editing Process:

        The editor reviews and takes into consideration all significant modifications and revisions made by the author according to the comments and directions before making the final decision. Then the editor can send the corrected article back to the reviewer if needed, or even return the article to the author if it has not been prepared according to the research and format. The review will be passed by the editor only or by reviewers and editors for the next round. Usually, if the editor and reviewers believe that the review has adequately addressed their previous issues and that the paper has improved after the review, the paper will proceed to the next step.

10. Decision on Article:

   The final decision is given to the editor-in-chief. If the paper is accepted, a letter of acceptance is issued to the authors. Authors may be required to complete some formalities as a prerequisite for publication. Then the manuscript will be edited and put into final production. The submitted/corresponding authors are  informed of the results of their manuscripts through emails and the journal’s online review page.

11. Production:

        The submitted articles are worked on by the production process. World-class services are employed to create the best piece of writing for readers.

12. Online Publishing

             Once the due procedure for the final publication is completed, the articles are published on the website with the number DOI.