Peer Review Process

1) Type of Peer Review

Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning Studies (ELTIS) applies a double-blind peer review process, in which authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other to support fairness and reduce potential bias.

2) Initial Editorial Screening

All submissions are first evaluated by the editorial team to ensure:

  • alignment with the journal’s focus and scope

  • compliance with author guidelines and basic academic writing standards

  • completeness of metadata and files (manuscript, references, ethical statements, etc.)

  • preliminary checks for research ethics and potential publication misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, redundant publication)

Submissions that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review (desk rejection) to ensure an efficient review process.

3) Similarity/Plagiarism Screening

ELTIS may conduct a similarity check using appropriate tools. Manuscripts with unacceptable overlap, improper citation, or suspected plagiarism will be handled according to the journal’s publication ethics policy.

4) External Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • originality and contribution to ELT / language learning studies

  • clarity of research questions/objectives and theoretical grounding

  • methodological rigor and appropriateness of analysis

  • coherence of results and discussion (logic, interpretation, implications)

  • quality of references and academic writing

  • ethical considerations (where applicable)

Reviewers must provide objective, constructive, and confidential feedback and disclose any conflicts of interest.

5) Review Timeline

ELTIS targets the following indicative timeline:

  • Initial editorial screening: 1–2 weeks

  • Peer review: 3–6 weeks

  • Author revision: 1–3 weeks (depending on the revision type)

  • Final decision: 1–2 weeks after revision is received

Timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and the extent of revisions.

6) Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewer reports and the editor’s assessment, ELTIS may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

When revisions are requested, authors should submit:

  • a revised manuscript with changes clearly indicated (tracked changes or highlighted text, if required), and

  • a response-to-reviewers document explaining how each comment was addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers when needed.

7) Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

All manuscripts and review communications are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts or use any information obtained during review for personal advantage.
Editors and reviewers must declare conflicts of interest and withdraw from handling a manuscript when a conflict exists.

8) Ethical Oversight During Review

If ethical concerns arise (e.g., plagiarism, data integrity issues, duplicate submission, authorship disputes), the editorial team will follow ethical best practices and may request clarification, supporting data, or institutional documentation when necessary. ELTIS refers to COPE-related guidance in handling such cases.

9) Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned request to the editor, supported by clear evidence (e.g., factual misunderstandings or procedural issues). The editor’s decision after considering an appeal is final.

10) OJS Workflow Note (for Authors/Reviewers)

The peer review process is managed through Open Journal Systems (OJS), and in a double-blind setup reviewer-facing pages do not display author-identifying information.