Peer Review Process

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. 

  • Review Guidelines

JETLAL highly appreciates your kind support by agreeing to review an article for our journal. Before they consent to evaluate any paper, the reviewers are requested to consider a number of points. First, if the paper is not in your area of research interest and expertise, please inform the editor and feel free to refuse to review it. Second, if you have no free time to evaluate the paper before the deadline, kindly inform the editor. Third, in case of any conflicts of interest, the reviewer’s acknowledgement can be very useful in our final decision. Therefore, if by any chance you have read the paper before or happen to know the authors, please inform the editor about this.

Kindly make sure you review the paper confidentially. Please avoid contacting the authors. In addition, should you feel the need to ask a third party for their comments, please make sure to inform the managing editor in advance.

Before they are sent to reviewers, all JETLAL papers are previewed by our editor-in-chief. The papers are also checked for their originality using the turn-it-in software. However to our experience, there have been cases of plagiarism which the software has failed to detect. If you doubt the originality of any part(s) of the work you are reviewing, please inform the editor. In addition, if you suspect the accuracy or truth of any part(s) of the work under review, make sure to inform the editor about it.

JETLAL reviewers are requested to evaluate the articles based on a number of evaluative criteria available in the Review Form, including the clarity, quality, thoroughness, relevance, significance, and soundness of the works. The reviewers score each of these criteria from 5 to 1 (with 5 signifying ‘excellent’ and 1 ‘extremely weak’), based on the quality of the work. Reviewers are also most welcome to leave comments in the manuscript itself. These comments are very valuable for the professional development of any authors and will unquestionably help them improve their work.

Reviewers may also add their comments in the second section of the Review Form. Having reviewed the paper, the reviewer is requested to make any of the following decisions:

  • Accept as it is
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Accept with major revisions
  • Send me the revised paper
  • Reject

This decision should be based on the merits and demerits of the work under review.

JETLAL papers are proofread before they are published, and the reviewers are by no means obliged to correct or mark language errors or typos. However, if the reviewers detect such cases, they are most welcome to highlight them.

JETLAL corresponds with its reviewers only through email; therefore, you are requested to email your report and in-text comments (if any) to the JETLAL editor.

Reviewing is undoubtedly an invaluable and noble act that cannot be compensated by any means. However, JETLAL hopes to return this favour, at least in part, by occasional discounts for its reviewers if they wish to publish their works with us.