Peer-Review Process Policy

The International Journal of Language Education and Cultural Review (IJLECR) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, transparent, objective, and accountable peer-review process as an essential mechanism for ensuring the scholarly quality and integrity of all published articles. The journal provides a clearly stated Peer-Review Process Policy that is publicly accessible through a direct link on the journal’s main website. This policy describes the review model, stages of review, review criteria, reviewer qualifications, number of reviewers, review timeframe, similarity checking, and procedures for editorial decision-making. This approach is consistent with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, which require journals to clearly disclose their peer-review model, the parties involved in the review process, relevant review procedures, and how final editorial decisions are made.

IJLECR applies a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Before a manuscript is sent to reviewers, the Editorial Team conducts an initial screening to determine its conformity with the journal’s aims and scope, author guidelines, manuscript structure, academic quality, ethical requirements, and other submission requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected at this stage. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening proceed to similarity checking and substantive peer review. The use of double-blind review is intended to minimize potential bias related to the identity, institutional affiliation, nationality, academic position, or other characteristics of authors and reviewers. COPE also emphasizes that reviewers should provide objective and constructive assessments and avoid biases unrelated to the scholarly merits of the manuscript.

Each manuscript that proceeds to the peer-review stage is normally evaluated by at least two independent Peer Reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject matter of the manuscript, particularly in language education, linguistics, literature, cultural studies, or other fields covered by IJLECR. Reviewers should possess appropriate academic expertise, a relevant scholarly publication record, and sufficient knowledge and experience to evaluate the manuscript objectively. Reviewer selection should be based primarily on the correspondence between the reviewer’s expertise and the manuscript topic rather than personal or institutional considerations. Reviewers must also disclose any potential conflict of interest and should decline an invitation when they lack the necessary expertise or cannot provide an impartial assessment. These principles correspond to COPE guidance requiring reviewers to have appropriate subject expertise, provide accurate professional information, disclose competing interests, and undertake reviews objectively and responsibly.

The review criteria used by IJLECR focus on the scholarly merit and contribution of the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to evaluate, as appropriate to the type of article, the originality and significance of the study, relevance of the topic to the journal’s aims and scope, clarity of the research problem and objectives, adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework, appropriateness and rigor of the methodology, validity and clarity of the findings, depth of analysis and discussion, relevance and currency of references, consistency between findings and conclusions, quality of academic writing, and the manuscript’s contribution to the development of knowledge in language education and cultural studies. Reviews must be objective, critical, constructive, evidence-based, and respectful, with comments intended both to assist the Editor in reaching a decision and to help authors improve the scholarly quality of their manuscripts. This reflects COPE’s expectation that reviewers provide unbiased and constructive criticism while maintaining professional standards.

IJLECR requires reviewers to complete their assessments within the review period specified in the review invitation and OJS 3 system. Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they are reasonably able to complete the review within the stated or mutually agreed timeframe. If additional time is required, the reviewer must promptly inform the Editorial Team so that an extension or reassignment can be considered. The Editorial Team monitors the progress of reviews through OJS 3 and may send reminders or appoint replacement reviewers when necessary to maintain the efficiency and continuity of the editorial process. This policy follows COPE guidance that reviewers should respond to review invitations within a reasonable period and complete accepted reviews within the agreed timeframe.

As part of the initial editorial assessment, submitted manuscripts are subject to a similarity check using appropriate similarity-detection software. The similarity report is used by the Editorial Team as an instrument for identifying potentially problematic textual overlap and is not treated as an automatic determination of plagiarism. Editors evaluate the nature, location, extent, and scholarly context of identified similarities before determining whether a manuscript may proceed to peer review, requires clarification or revision, or should be rejected on ethical grounds. Any suspected research or publication misconduct identified during the editorial or peer-review process is handled in accordance with IJLECR’s publication ethics policies and applicable COPE principles. COPE’s transparency principles specifically expect journals to maintain procedures for addressing plagiarism and other forms of research misconduct.

Following evaluation, Peer Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommendations, which may include acceptance, revision, or rejection. Reviewer recommendations constitute expert advice to the Editorial Team and do not constitute the final decision on a manuscript. Where revisions are required, authors must respond appropriately to reviewer comments and submit a revised manuscript. Depending on the extent of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or reassessed by the Editor. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor based on the manuscript’s scholarly quality, reviewer reports and recommendations, authors’ responses and revisions, compliance with journal policies, and relevant ethical considerations. The Editor retains responsibility and authority for the final decision and must ensure that decisions are made independently, consistently, fairly, and without inappropriate influence. COPE’s transparency principles likewise require journals to explain clearly how manuscript decisions are ultimately reached and who is involved in those decisions.

Throughout the entire process, IJLECR conducts peer review in accordance with internationally recognized principles of publication ethics, particularly the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscripts and review materials, avoid using unpublished information for personal or professional advantage, declare potential competing interests, provide impartial and constructive assessments, respect intellectual property, and promptly inform the Editor of suspected ethical violations. The complete process can therefore be summarized as Manuscript Submission, Initial Editorial Screening, Similarity Check, Double-Blind Peer Review by at Least Two Reviewers, Author Revision, Re-evaluation when Necessary, Editorial Decision, Copyediting and Production, and Publication. Through this structured process, IJLECR seeks to ensure that every published article has undergone a credible, documented, transparent, and ethically responsible scholarly evaluation.