Review Guidelines

ETERNAL – English, Teaching, Learning and Research

Researching the Transformation of English Language Education

ETERNAL uses a double-blind peer-review process to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, objectively, and consistently. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve the quality of their manuscripts while supporting the journal’s standards of scholarly integrity.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers should:

  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively and independently.
  • Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and the review process.
  • Provide constructive, specific, and evidence-based comments.
  • Identify major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
  • Assess whether the research is appropriate for the scope of ETERNAL.
  • Avoid personal, discriminatory, or offensive comments.
  • Declare any potential conflict of interest before accepting the review.
  • Complete the review within the agreed timeframe.
  • Not use, share, or reproduce unpublished information from the manuscript for personal or professional purposes.

Reviewers should not contact the authors directly about the manuscript.

Scope and Relevance

Reviewers should first consider whether the manuscript fits the focus of ETERNAL, particularly research concerning the transformation of English language education.

The manuscript may address areas such as:

  • English language teaching and learning
  • Artificial intelligence and emerging technologies
  • Teacher, learner, and researcher agency
  • Teacher education and professional development
  • Curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment
  • Language, culture, identity, and multilingualism
  • English for Specific/Academic Purposes
  • Digital and technology-enhanced learning
  • Research methodology and methodological innovation
  • Research synthesis, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis
  • Other emerging issues relevant to English language education

A study does not necessarily need to use the word transformation in its title. Reviewers should consider whether the study provides meaningful insight into change, adaptation, emerging practices, tensions, or developments in English language education.

Originality and Contribution

Reviewers should consider:

  • Is the research question or problem clear and meaningful?
  • Does the manuscript address an identifiable gap in the literature?
  • Does the study provide new evidence, interpretation, methodology, or theoretical insight?
  • Does it make a meaningful contribution to English language education?
  • Does the manuscript go beyond simply describing a local situation?
  • Are the implications relevant to a wider scholarly or professional audience?

A study conducted in a particular country, institution, or educational setting can be publishable if it provides insights that are relevant beyond the immediate context.

Title and Abstract

Reviewers should assess whether the title accurately represents the manuscript and whether the abstract clearly summarizes:

  • the research problem or purpose;
  • the methodology;
  • the main findings; and
  • the contribution or implications.

The abstract should be consistent with the actual content of the manuscript and should not make claims that are not supported by the study.

Introduction and Literature Review

Reviewers should assess whether the Introduction:

  • establishes the importance of the research problem;
  • provides an appropriate background;
  • engages with relevant previous research;
  • identifies a clear research gap;
  • explains why the gap matters; and
  • presents clear research questions or objectives.

The literature review should demonstrate critical synthesis, rather than simply listing previous studies.

Reviewers should consider whether the authors identify important patterns, disagreements, developments, or unresolved issues in the literature.

Theoretical or Conceptual Framework

Where relevant, reviewers should assess whether:

  • the theoretical or conceptual framework is appropriate;
  • the framework is clearly explained;
  • relevant concepts are adequately defined;
  • the framework is connected to the research questions and methodology; and
  • the theory is actually used to interpret or explain the findings.

A manuscript should not be criticized simply because it does not use a particular theory if its research design and analytical approach are otherwise appropriate.

Methodology

The methodology should be sufficiently clear for readers to understand how the study was conducted.

Reviewers should consider:

  • appropriateness of the research design;
  • clarity of the research setting and participants/data sources;
  • sampling or recruitment procedures;
  • appropriateness of instruments or materials;
  • data collection procedures;
  • data analysis procedures;
  • alignment between research questions and methods;
  • validity and reliability for quantitative research;
  • credibility and trustworthiness for qualitative research;
  • integration of components in mixed-methods research; and
  • ethical procedures where applicable.

Reviewers should evaluate the fit between the research problem, design, evidence, and analysis, rather than assuming that one research method is superior to another.

Results or Findings

Reviewers should assess whether the results or findings:

  • directly address the research questions or objectives;
  • are clearly and logically presented;
  • are supported by appropriate evidence;
  • are consistent with the methodology;
  • distinguish evidence from interpretation; and
  • adequately report relevant or unexpected findings.

Tables and figures should be accurate, necessary, and clearly presented.

Discussion

The Discussion should explain the significance of the findings rather than simply repeat them.

Reviewers should consider whether the authors:

  • interpret the findings appropriately;
  • connect the findings with previous research;
  • relate the findings to the theoretical or conceptual framework where relevant;
  • explain similarities and differences with earlier studies;
  • identify the broader significance of the findings; and
  • explain how the study contributes to understanding developments or transformation in English language education.

Claims should be supported by the evidence presented in the manuscript.

Conclusion and Implications

The conclusion should follow logically from the findings.

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript:

  • clearly identifies its main contribution;
  • avoids introducing new evidence;
  • provides appropriate implications;
  • acknowledges important limitations; and
  • suggests reasonable directions for future research where appropriate.

Implications should be evidence-based and specific, rather than broad recommendations unsupported by the findings.

Research Ethics and Integrity

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript provides appropriate information about research ethics, particularly when human participants are involved.

Where applicable, reviewers should check for evidence of:

  • ethical approval;
  • informed consent;
  • confidentiality and anonymity;
  • appropriate treatment of participant data; and
  • responsible reporting of research findings.

Reviewers should also be alert to possible plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, manipulated results, duplicate publication, fabricated references, or other forms of research misconduct.

If serious concerns arise, reviewers should inform the editor rather than attempting to investigate the matter independently.

Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript appears to use AI-generated content in a way that may affect its originality, accuracy, or research integrity.

The use of AI-assisted tools is not automatically a reason for rejection. However, authors remain responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their manuscript.

Reviewers should be alert to:

  • fabricated or inaccurate references;
  • unsupported claims;
  • invented data or findings;
  • inappropriate AI-generated analysis;
  • misleading statements about research procedures; and
  • substantial undisclosed AI-generated content where disclosure is required.

Suspected AI use should not be treated as misconduct solely on the basis of stylistic impressions. Reviewers should focus on evidence of research or publication misconduct and communicate concerns to the editor.

References

Reviewers should assess whether the references are:

  • relevant to the research problem;
  • sufficiently current where appropriate;
  • from credible scholarly sources;
  • accurately cited; and
  • appropriately connected to the claims made in the manuscript.

Reviewers should not require authors to cite the reviewer’s own publications unless they are genuinely relevant to the manuscript.

Language and Presentation

Reviewers may comment on clarity, organization, academic writing, tables, figures, and overall presentation.

Minor language problems should normally be identified as minor revisions rather than becoming the main basis for rejection when the research itself is sound.

Reviewers should distinguish between problems that affect the scientific or scholarly quality of the manuscript and problems that can be corrected through editing.

Overall Recommendation

After completing the review, reviewers should select one of the following recommendations:

Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only very minor changes.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is generally sound but requires limited revisions, such as clarification, additional explanation, correction of presentation, or minor methodological or analytical improvements.

Major Revision

The manuscript has potential but requires substantial revision before it can be considered for publication. Major issues may involve the research gap, theoretical framework, methodology, analysis, interpretation, or presentation.

Reject and Resubmit

The manuscript has potential but requires substantial redevelopment that goes beyond a normal revision. A substantially revised manuscript may be considered as a new submission, subject to the journal’s policy.

Reject

The manuscript has fundamental problems that prevent publication, such as serious methodological weaknesses, insufficient contribution, major ethical concerns, lack of fit with the journal, unreliable evidence, or substantial research misconduct.

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor, not by the reviewer alone.

Comments to the Authors

Comments should be:

  • respectful;
  • specific;
  • constructive;
  • evidence-based; and
  • organized according to the major issues in the manuscript.

Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish between major concerns and minor concerns.

Where possible, reviewers should explain:

  1. what the problem is;
  2. why it matters; and
  3. how the authors could improve it.

Instead of writing:

The methodology is weak.

A more useful comment would be:

The manuscript does not explain how participants were recruited or why the selected sample was appropriate for the research questions. Please provide more information about the recruitment process and justify the sampling strategy.

Confidential Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may provide confidential comments to the editor when they have concerns that should not be communicated directly to the authors, particularly regarding:

  • ethical issues;
  • suspected plagiarism or duplicate publication;
  • conflicts of interest;
  • serious methodological concerns;
  • suspected fabrication or falsification; or
  • other matters affecting the integrity of the manuscript.

Confidential comments should remain professional and should support the editorial decision.

Reviewer Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline the invitation if they:

  • have a personal or professional conflict with the authors;
  • have recently collaborated with the authors;
  • are involved in competing research that could affect their judgment;
  • have a financial or other interest in the outcome; or
  • believe they cannot provide an impartial review.

If a potential conflict becomes apparent after accepting the review, reviewers should immediately inform the editor.

Reviewer Confidentiality

The manuscript and all information obtained during the review process must be treated as confidential.

Reviewers should not:

  • share the manuscript with others without permission from the editor;
  • upload the manuscript to public or external AI systems or other services;
  • discuss the manuscript publicly;
  • use unpublished ideas or findings for their own research; or
  • disclose the identity of the authors where the review is double-blind.
  • Suggested Review Structure

Reviewers may organize their report as follows:

Overall Assessment
Briefly describe the manuscript’s main contribution and overall quality.

Major Comments
Identify the most important issues that must be addressed before publication.

Minor Comments
Identify smaller issues involving clarity, organization, references, language, tables, figures, or formatting.

Recommendation
Select the appropriate recommendation in the review system.

Reviewer Principle

The purpose of peer review is not simply to identify weaknesses or decide whether a manuscript should be accepted. It is also to help authors strengthen the research, clarify its contribution, and improve its value to the field of English language education.

ETERNAL therefore encourages reviewers to ask:

What does this study contribute, how convincing is the evidence, and how does it help us better understand the transformation of English language education?