JETLAL uses double-blind system: the reviewers' identities remain anonymous to authors. The paper is reviewed by three experts, including the editor-in-chief and two other experts in the related area. 

• Peer Review / Responsibility of the Reviewers 

All submissions are checked for their originality before they are sent to reviewers. However, reviewers are also requested to report any cases of non-original content in the manuscripts they review.

It is recommended that the reviewers also see the Author Guidelines and Policies page to see which points authors should take into consideration prior to submission of their papers for publication. Finally the reviewers are encouraged to take the following tips into account while reviewing manuscripts:

This brief guideline seeks to help JETLAL reviewers criticize the manuscripts they have been requested to evaluate more effectively:

1. Focus on behavior: Focus on what the author wrote. Avoid the tendency to assume that you know why the author did one thing rather than the other. Here are some examples of criticism as attack or criticism as support:

Example 1

I wasn’t interested in your topic. (Criticism as attack)

I would have liked to see more variety in your writing. It would have made me feel that you were more interested. (Criticism as support)

Example 2

You should have put more time into the work. (Criticism as attack)

I think it would have been more effective if you had proofread and edited the final draft. (Criticism as support)

Example 3

You didn’t care about your audience. (Criticism as attack)

I would have liked it if you had accounted for the audience. (Criticism as support)

 

2. Stress the positive: Strengthen the already positive aspects of the author’s performance. Instead of “Your text didn’t make any sense to me,” state what you liked first then bring up the weak point and suggest how it might be improved.
3. Be specific: Statements like, “I liked your study; it was really great,” don’t specify how the author can improve the work. Refer to specifics as clarity, structure, etc. When giving negative criticism, specify and justify: “I thought the way you introduced your statistics was vague; I wasn’t sure where the statistics came from or how recent or reliable they were; it might have been better to say something like: The U.S. Census figures for 2014 show …”
4. Be objective: Transcend your biases as best as you can. Stating “Your proposition was unfair” will show that you did not judge from the view point of a detached critic. It’s equally important to avoid positively evaluating a text because it presents a position with which you agree as in “I liked the paper; learners must have a right to choose.”

5. Be constructive: Your primary goal should be to provide the author with insight that will prove useful in future writing. Stating “The introduction didn’t gain my attention,” doesn’t tell the authors how they might have gained your attention. Instead you may state, “The example in the discussion would have more effectively gained my attention in the introduction.”

6. Own your criticism: Take responsibility for your criticism. Use “I-messages” rather than “you-messages”. Instead of “You needed a better review of literature” state, “I would have been more persuaded if you had used more recent literature to support your findings.” Avoid attributing what you found to others. Instead of stating, “Nobody will be able to understand this section,” state, “I had difficulty understanding this section.” Equally avoid “should-messages”: Instead of “You should have linked the two ideas”, state, “I didn’t see the connection between the two ideas”.

• Editorial Responsibilities

Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article. Editors should have no conflict of interest with respect to articles they reject/accept, only accept a paper when reasonably certain, when errors are found, promote publication of correction or retraction,  and preserve anonymity of reviewers.

Although reviewed articles are treated confidentially, reviewers’ judgments should be objective. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders, and reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited.