Peer Review Process

ETERNAL (English, Teaching, Learning and Research) uses a double-blind peer review process to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, objectively, and independently. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first screened by the editorial team to determine whether they fit the journal's aims and scope and meet the basic requirements of the Author Guidelines.

The editors assess the manuscript's originality, relevance, academic quality, structure, language, methodology, and ethical requirements. Manuscripts that are outside the journal's scope or do not meet essential requirements may be rejected without external review.

2. Similarity and Integrity Check

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening may undergo a similarity check and other appropriate research-integrity checks. The editors assess any identified overlap in context. Manuscripts may be rejected if serious concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or other research misconduct are identified.

3. Reviewer Selection

Each manuscript is normally reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, and ability to provide an objective assessment. Reviewers with a potential conflict of interest are not appointed.

4. Double-Blind Review

ETERNAL uses a double-blind review system. Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

Authors should therefore remove names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and other identifying information from the manuscript submitted for review.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • originality and significance;
  • relevance to the journal's aims and scope;
  • clarity of the research problem and objectives;
  • theoretical or conceptual foundation;
  • appropriateness and rigor of the methodology;
  • quality and credibility of the evidence or data;
  • analysis and interpretation of findings;
  • contribution to English language education;
  • clarity of conclusions and implications; and
  • quality and relevance of references.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive and evidence-based comments.

6. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' reports and the editor's assessment, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The reviewers' recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the Editor.

When reviewer recommendations substantially differ, the Editor may request an additional review before making a decision.

7. Revision and Re-Review

When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how the reviewers' comments have been addressed.

Manuscripts requiring substantial revision may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. More than one round of revision may be required.

8. Confidentiality and Reviewer Conduct

All manuscripts are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share, copy, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal or professional purposes.

Reviewers should provide objective, respectful, and constructive comments and disclose any conflict of interest. Personal, discriminatory, or inappropriate comments are not acceptable.

9. Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, or reviewer materials to generative AI tools or other external systems that may compromise confidentiality.

Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of their review reports.

10. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant procedural error, factual misunderstanding, or conflict of interest has affected the decision.

Appeals should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief with a clear academic justification. Complaints concerning the review process or publication ethics may also be submitted to the editorial office and will be handled confidentially.

ETERNAL is committed to maintaining a fair, rigorous, confidential, and constructive peer review process that supports the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing.