A double-blind peer review procedure applies to articles submitted. Manuscripts first undergo an assessment by the editor(s) for compliance and suitability, after which abstracts are sent to potential reviewers with an invitation to review. Once such an invitation has been accepted, reviewers are asked to advise on the suitability and appropriateness of the submission, especially its academic quality, and to provide suggestions for improvement to the authors (see below “Quality checklist”). Finally, they are asked to recommend whether the submission should be accepted, revised, or rejected.
The editor receives and integrates reviews and communicates with the corresponding author/s. The editor ensures that there is rigorous implementation of valid reviewer critique and article improvement to maintain the quality of the articles. Peer reviewers receive follow-up information if requested. Review reports are retained and are accessible for reference purposes.
The editor will safeguard the anonymity of authors and reviewers to ensure the integrity of the peer review process. Reviewers will treat reviewed articles as confidential.
Submissions are distributed to reviewers on a date and time as determined by the editor-in-chief. Distribution of submissions to the respective reviewers is either dealt with in batch format (i.e. all on a specific date), or they can be distributed as and when they are submitted. Turnaround time is usually 6-12 weeks.
Selection of peer reviewers
Usually two reviewers are approached for peer review and they are selected based on their expertise and specific field of focus in the article. Peer reviewers need to be experts in the area investigated by the journal article, or established researchers with broad-based knowledge in applied linguistics or in the field of language education.
Reviewers are required to have no conflict of interest with regard to the authors, the research or its funders.
The editor uses a regularly updated “Directory of Expertise” to guide him/her in assigning articles to reviewers.
Peer review guidelines
The following guidelines are provided to peer reviewers.
- Is this paper suitable for publication in the Journal for Language Teaching? Does it make a substantial contribution (new knowledge) to language teaching? What adjustments do you think should be made in this regard?
- Does the title succinctly capture what the article is about? If it should be improved, what are your suggestions?
- Is the abstract appropriate? In other words, does the abstract provide a clear and true summary of the article?
- Is the introduction brief and relevant, giving the reader a clear indication of what is to follow?
- Has the research problem (this could be empirical and/or conceptual) been stated clearly?
- Is the rationale for the research problem defensible and clear as opposed to absent/vague/irrelevant? Has the study been sufficiently contextualised?
- Has a clear research question, and where applicable, sub-question(s) been formulated? Are they aligned with the title and purpose of the study?
- Is the literature well-integrated and critiqued? Are key issues/trends/silences in the subject field mentioned? Does the author display adequate insight into the relevant literature? Is the connection between the various viewpoints described in the literature review clear? Does the literature review include an appropriate range of relevant sources (national and international)?
- Is an appropriate theoretical / conceptual framework presented for the study? Is the work of relevant scholars indicated and discussed briefly to explain the chosen theoretical / conceptual framework?
- Is the overall research design appropriate for the study and has it been clearly described?
- Has the research methodology (e.g. qualitative and/or quantitative) been described? Is the research methodology based on an acceptable scientific basis?
- Are the results based on a clearly demarcated field of research and/or comprehensive database? Has the design of the protocols/instruments been clearly described? Have the sampling strategies/selection criteria been adequately described?
- Have the data collection procedures been described adequately, including the rationale, the advantages and disadvantages of using these in this study?
- Have the data analysis procedures, including rationale/advantages and limitations, been described? Is the audit trail clear? Have issues relating to validity/reliability, trustworthiness, etc., been addressed?
- Has a well-founded conclusion been reached? Have the research questions been answered? Have limitations been suggested?
- Does the author write in a scholarly/scientific manner using his/her own words, appropriate academic/technical terms and avoiding colloquial expressions? Is the article error-free with reference to grammatically and technically accuracy?
- Does the author use in-text references correctly and appropriately? Is the list of references complete and correct? Where applicable, are sources recent and sufficient for a journal article?
- With regards to the format, has the in-house style of the Journal been adhered to?
Reviewers will also scrutinize the ethicality of the research reported on in the article.
- Is there a declaration of ethical intent?
- With respect to human participation, have all necessary permissions been obtained?
- Have confidentiality / anonymity issues been addressed satisfactorily? Can the author provide the necessary documentation?
Open Access Policy:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Preprints that may jeaopardise the double-blind peer review are not allowed.
The Journal appears at least twice a year. Issues are pre-scheduled to appear in June/July and December/January, and issues are published on time. The editorial team ensures that there is no publication backlog.
print ISSN: 0259-9570