ECJ

Peer Review process

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

English Community Journal (ECJ)

English Community Journal (ECJ) implements a blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and academic integrity of submitted manuscripts. All manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before being considered for external peer review.

Manuscripts that satisfy the journal's preliminary requirements are normally evaluated by at least two qualified reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the submitted research.

The journal is committed to maintaining an independent, transparent, fair, and rigorous review process. A Letter of Acceptance (LoA) is issued only after a manuscript has successfully completed the required editorial and peer-review procedures and received a final acceptance decision.

The review process is guided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, emphasizing confidentiality, impartiality, constructive evaluation, accountability, and professional responsibility.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo preliminary screening by the editorial team before being assigned to reviewers.

The initial assessment considers:

  • Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.

  • Compliance with the Author Guidelines and official manuscript template.

  • Originality, novelty, and potential scholarly contribution.

  • Clarity of research objectives and questions.

  • Appropriateness of the research design or analytical approach.

  • Quality and relevance of scholarly references.

  • Compliance with research and publication ethics.

  • Potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, or inappropriate textual overlap.

Similarity-checking tools may be used to support the editorial assessment. However, a similarity percentage alone does not establish plagiarism. Editors consider the nature, extent, context, and attribution of overlapping material.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet minimum academic standards, or demonstrate serious ethical concerns may be rejected without external peer review (desk rejection).

Authors may also be requested to revise technical or formatting deficiencies before the manuscript proceeds to the review stage.

2. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to qualified reviewers according to their academic expertise, research experience, methodological competence, and relevance to the manuscript.

Reviewer selection considers:

  • Expertise in English Language Education, Linguistics, Applied Linguistics, Literature, or Cultural Studies.

  • Relevant research and publication experience.

  • Competence in evaluating the research methodology.

  • Independence and absence of significant conflicts of interest.

  • Availability to complete a constructive and timely review.

Additional reviewers may be appointed when specialized methodological or disciplinary expertise is required.

Reviewers must inform the editor of potential conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethical Conduct

Reviewers are expected to uphold professional and ethical standards throughout the review process.

3.1. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, unpublished findings, and editorial communications must be treated as confidential.

Reviewers must not share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals or disclose unpublished information obtained during the review process.

Confidential manuscripts must not be uploaded to external artificial intelligence systems without editorial authorization and appropriate confidentiality safeguards.

3.2. Objectivity and Constructive Assessment

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and constructively.

Reviews should:

  • Focus on scientific quality and academic contribution.

  • Provide evidence-based comments and recommendations.

  • Identify methodological weaknesses and limitations.

  • Offer constructive suggestions for improvement.

  • Avoid personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, and unsupported allegations.

3.3. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose relationships or interests that could compromise their impartiality, including personal, institutional, financial, professional, or collaborative relationships with the authors.

Reviewers with significant conflicts of interest should decline the assignment or seek editorial guidance.

3.4. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete their assessments within the agreed review period.

When additional time is required, reviewers should promptly notify the editorial team.

3.5. Reporting Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should confidentially inform the editor of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, falsification, unethical research practices, or other concerns affecting research integrity.

Reviewers must not independently investigate allegations or publicly accuse authors.

3.6. Responsible Citation Recommendations

Recommendations for additional references must serve a legitimate scholarly purpose.

Reviewers must not request unnecessary citations to their own publications, associated researchers, or particular journals merely to increase citation counts.

4. Peer-Review Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to the type of article, research objectives, methodological approach, and relevant academic discipline.

The evaluation generally includes:

  • Originality, novelty, and significance of the research.

  • Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.

  • Clarity of research objectives, questions, or hypotheses.

  • Adequacy of theoretical and conceptual foundations.

  • Appropriateness of research methods and analytical procedures.

  • Quality of instruments, data collection, and supporting evidence.

  • Accuracy and transparency of data analysis.

  • Consistency between findings, discussion, and conclusions.

  • Contribution to existing knowledge and previous research.

  • Quality, relevance, and currency of references.

  • Compliance with research and publication ethics.

  • Clarity, coherence, and academic language.

4.1. Quantitative Research

Reviewers examine the appropriateness of research design, sampling procedures, measurement instruments, validity and reliability evidence, statistical analyses, interpretation of findings, and the extent to which the conclusions are supported by the data.

4.2. Qualitative Research

Reviewers evaluate methodological coherence, participant or source selection, data collection procedures, analytical transparency, reflexivity, trustworthiness, and the relationship between evidence and interpretation.

4.3. Mixed-Methods Research

Reviewers assess the quality of quantitative and qualitative components and the integration of their findings in addressing the research objectives.

4.4. Linguistic and Literary Studies

Reviewers evaluate theoretical relevance, analytical frameworks, selection of linguistic or literary data, interpretative rigor, contextual understanding, and contributions to English language, linguistic, literary, or cultural scholarship.

4.5. Review Articles

Review articles are evaluated according to the clarity of their objectives, appropriateness of literature selection, transparency of review procedures, critical synthesis, theoretical contribution, and identification of research gaps.

Systematic reviews should provide sufficiently transparent search, screening, eligibility, and synthesis procedures.

5. Editorial Decisions and Revision

Following consideration of reviewer reports, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  1. Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to any necessary editorial or production requirements.

  2. Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited improvements that do not substantially affect its research design, findings, or principal arguments.

  3. Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial improvements involving methodology, analysis, theoretical discussion, presentation, or interpretation.

  4. Decline Submission: The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic or ethical standards or cannot be brought to an acceptable standard through reasonable revision.

Authors receiving revision requests must submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a point-by-point response explaining how the reviewer and editorial comments have been addressed.

Where authors disagree with particular recommendations, they should provide a reasoned academic explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be evaluated by the handling editor, returned to the original reviewers, or referred to additional reviewers when necessary.

Multiple rounds of revision may be required. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision after considering the reviewers' evaluations, editorial recommendations, manuscript quality, and relevant journal policies.

6. Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editorial decisions must be based on academic merit, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's scope.

Decisions must not be influenced by publication fees, institutional pressure, commercial interests, or personal relationships.

Editors must withdraw from handling manuscripts when a significant conflict of interest exists.

Manuscripts submitted by members of the editorial board must undergo the same academic and ethical assessment as other submissions. An independent editor should manage the review and decision-making process.

7. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a written explanation through the journal's official communication channels.

Appeals should identify factual errors, procedural concerns, or substantial academic grounds for reconsideration.

Where feasible, appeals should be evaluated by an editor who was not involved in the original decision.

Complaints relating to reviewer conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, or procedural fairness will be examined according to the journal's Publication Ethics policy.

An appeal does not automatically result in the acceptance of a manuscript.

8. Publication Ethics and COPE Guidance

English Community Journal is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, confidential, and accountable peer-review process.

The journal's review principles are informed by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, particularly regarding confidentiality, impartiality, timely evaluation, competing interests, constructive criticism, and professional accountability.

Reference

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2017). COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (Version 2). https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9