Peer Review Process

Journal of Language Education, Linguistics, and Culture is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal: the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review. This minimizes bias and ensures that manuscripts are judged on their intellectual merit and methodological quality. Every paper sent for review is assessed by at least two reviewers with expertise relevant to the article, to determine its suitability for publication and to maintain the quality and credibility of the journal.

Review and Production Stages

  1. Submission. The corresponding author submits the paper through the journal’s Open Journal Systems (OJS). All submissions are made online so that the review process is transparent and traceable.
  2. Initial evaluation. The editorial staff check that the submission is complete (title, abstract in Indonesian and English, keywords, required statements) and follows the Author Guidelines and the official template. Every paper is checked with Turnitin; papers with a similarity above 20 percent are returned to the author before going further. Fit with the Focus and Scope is assessed with the Manuscript Readiness Level. Papers that are insufficiently original, outside the scope, or of insufficient interest are declined at this stage without external review.
  3. Handling editor evaluation. A section editor is assigned and evaluates the paper’s relevance to the field, the strength and rigour of its argument or method, and its potential contribution to the literature. Where the assigned editor is an author or has a competing interest, another member of the editorial board is assigned instead. The paper is then declined, returned for revision before review, or sent to reviewers.
  4. Invitation to reviewers. The handling editor invites reviewers on the basis of subject expertise, closeness of research interest, and absence of conflict of interest, aiming to secure at least two independent reviewers. A third reviewer may be invited when specialist advice is needed, for example on statistics or a particular method.
  5. Double-blind review. Reviewers evaluate the paper’s relevance and originality, the clarity and structure of the argument, its methodological quality, its adherence to citation standards, and its potential scholarly impact, and give a detailed, point-by-point report. Each reviewer recommends one of: Accept, Revisions Required, Resubmit for Review, Resubmit Elsewhere, or Decline. A well-substantiated concern raised by a single reviewer, or by the handling editor independently of the reports, may be sufficient grounds for rejection.
  6. Post-review evaluation. The handling editor weighs the reviewers’ recommendations and prepares a decision. Editors consider every returned review but are not bound by them; editorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes. If the recommendations differ substantially, an additional reviewer may be invited. A paper is evaluated by at least two reviewers before a decision is made, and the recommendation is confirmed by the Editor-in-Chief where required.
  7. Revision and re-review. Nearly all papers need at least minor revision before acceptance. The corresponding author submits a revised manuscript with a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments. Papers with major revisions are re-evaluated, where possible by the original reviewers, to confirm that the revisions are satisfactory.
  8. Final decision. When the handling editor is satisfied with the revisions, the Editor-in-Chief issues a final Accept or Decline decision, sent to the author together with the relevant anonymized reviewer comments.
  9. Notification. After acceptance, the corresponding author is notified. Submission and publication are free of charge, as described on the Article Processing Charge page.
  10. Copyediting. The manuscript is copyedited for language, consistency, and journal style, in coordination with the corresponding author.
  11. Layout and proofreading. The layout editor sets the article in the journal layout, followed by a proofreading pass, by the journal or by the author, to catch final typographical or formatting errors.
  12. Publication. The final article is assigned a DOI under the prefix 10.25299/j-lelc and published open access as a PDF in a scheduled issue.

Types of Editorial Decisions

Decision Meaning
Decline The paper is judged not acceptable for publication. The same manuscript cannot be resubmitted.
Resubmit for review The submitted version is not acceptable and needs major revision, but the work shows clear potential. The revised paper is reviewed again.
Resubmit elsewhere The paper may suit another journal better and is not recommended for further review here.
Revisions required Changes are needed before a final decision. Authors submit a revised version with a point-by-point response. Revisions may be reviewed again, and more than one round may be needed.
Accept The paper is acceptable for publication, subject to minor editorial changes. After final checks it proceeds to production.

Authorship during Review

Authors should make sure the author list and the order of authors are final at the time of submission. Adding or removing an author is not permitted once the manuscript has entered review. If such a change is requested, review is paused and the matter is referred to the editorial board. No change to authorship is permitted after a manuscript has been accepted.

Overall Timeline

The time from submission to publication varies. Two factors account for most of the difference: how quickly invited reviewers respond and how many rounds of revision the paper needs (stages 4 to 7), and where the acceptance date falls in the journal’s cycle of February, June, and October issues. A paper that is reviewed promptly and needs only minor revision can be included in the next issue; a paper that needs major or repeated revision, or an additional reviewer, moves to a later issue. In every case the paper passes through the same double-blind review by at least two reviewers. No manuscript is exempted from any review stage.

Authors must not include self-identifying information in the manuscript file. See the Publication Ethics Statement.