Peer Review Process

To have high quality publication, each manuscript received in J-SHMIC : Journal of English for Academic will undergo the following process:

1. Desk review by the editors to determine whether the manuscripts comply with the writing guidelines.
2. If the manuscripts comply with the writing guidelines, they will be reviewed by minimum two reviewers (double-blind peer-reviews). The reviewers do not know the names or identities of the authors during this process, nor do the authors know the identity of the reviewers. Reviewers may be Editorial Board members or they may be invited Guest Reviewers.
3. Most submissions receive an initial editorial decision within 4 weeks until 16 weeks from the date of the submission.
4. An article shall be reviewed by max 1 month per reviewer & be sent back to Editor.

The main factors reviewers should provide advice on are the originality, presentation, relevance, and significance of the manuscript’s subject matter to the readership of J-SHMIC : Journal of English for Academic . Questions to be considered are:

  • Is the submission original?
  • Does the paper fit the scope of the journal?
  • Would the paper be of interest to the readership of the journal?
  • Does the paper help to expand or further research in this subject area?
  • Does it significantly build on (the author’s) previous work?
  • Do you feel that the significance and potential impact of a paper is high or low?
  • Is the paper complete? Is there an abstract or summary of the work undertaken as well as a concluding section?
  • Is the methodology presented in the manuscript and any analysis provided both accurate and properly conducted?
  • Are all relevant accompanying data, citations, or references given by the author?
  • Should it be shortened and reconsidered in another form?
  • Would you recommend that the author reconsider the paper for a related or alternative journal?
  • Is the submission in Standard English to aid the understanding of the reader?

Reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed comments. Several things to consider for reviewers are:

  • These should be suitable for transmission to the authors: use the comment to the author as an opportunity to seek clarification on any unclear points and for further elaboration.
  • If you have time, make suggestions as to how the author can improve clarity, succinctness, and the overall quality of presentation.
  • Confirm whether you feel the subject of the paper is sufficiently interesting to justify its length; if you recommend shortening, it is useful to the author(s) if you can indicate specific areas where you think that shortening is required.
  • It is not the job of the reviewer to edit the paper for English, but it is helpful if you correct the English where the technical meaning is unclear.
  • A reviewer may disagree with the author’s opinions, but should allow them to stand, provided they are consistent with the available evidence.
  • Remember that authors will welcome positive feedback as well as constructive criticism from you.