Peer Review Process

Contemporary English Teaching and Linguistics (CETL) upholds a rigorous, fair, and transparent double-blind peer review process to ensure the highest academic standards, integrity, and quality of published research. The journal adheres to the best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Scopus Content Selection & Advisory Board (CSAB) guidelines, and Web of Science Editorial Criteria.

General Principles

  1. Double-blind review:Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process.
  2. Fairness and impartiality:Manuscripts are evaluated solely on academic merit, originality, clarity, and contribution to the field, irrespective of the authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, religion, gender, or political orientation.
  3. Confidentiality:All submissions and review reports are treated as confidential and used exclusively for editorial evaluation.
  4. Timeliness:The journal is committed to an efficient review timeline to support authors’ academic productivity while ensuring depth and quality in assessment.

Workflow Overview

The CETL peer review process consists of eight systematic stages:

Stage 1: Initial Submission and Screening

  1. Upon submission, the manuscript is received via the Online Journal System (OJS).
  2. The editorial office verifies the completeness of submission files, adherence to author guidelines, and compliance with journal scope and formatting requirements.
  3. Manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software (e.g., Turnitinor iThenticate).
  • Submissions exceeding 15% similarity(excluding references) are returned to the author for revision or rejected outright.

Stage 2: Editorial Evaluation (Desk Review)

  1. The Editor-in-Chiefor a designated Associate Editorconducts an initial appraisal to determine:
  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.
  • Theoretical and methodological soundness.
  • Contribution to the field of English teaching, linguistics, or applied linguistics.
  1. Manuscripts that fail to meet the basic quality or ethical standards are desk rejectedwithout external review, typically within two weeks of submission.

Stage 3: Reviewer Assignment

  1. Manuscripts passing the desk review are assigned to two independent reviewerswith recognized expertise in the relevant field.
  2. In cases of conflicting or inconclusive reviews, a third reviewermay be invited to provide an additional evaluation.
  3. Reviewers are selected based on academic qualifications, research track record, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Stage 4: Double-Blind Peer Review

  1. The review process is conducted anonymously to maintain objectivity.
  2. Reviewers assess the manuscript according to key criteria, including:
  • Originality and contribution to knowledge
  • Theoretical framework and literature grounding
  • Methodological rigor and data validity
  • Clarity of presentation and coherence of argument
  • Relevance to the journal’s scope and readership
  1. Reviewers are asked to provide detailed, constructive feedback and a clear recommendation:
  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revision
  • Revise and resubmit (major revision)
  • Reject

The average review period is 4–8 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and complexity of the manuscript.

Stage 5: Editorial Decision

  1. The Editor-in-Chief reviews all reports and recommendations before making a final decision.
  2. Decisions are based on reviewer feedback, the manuscript’s overall quality, and the journal’s publication priorities.
  3. Authors receive a detailed editorial letter summarizing reviewers’ comments and required revisions.

Stage 6: Revision and Resubmission

  1. Authors are expected to revise their manuscripts carefully and address all reviewer comments point by point in a response-to-reviewers document.
  2. Revised manuscripts must be resubmitted within a designated timeframe (typically 2–4 weeksfor minor revisions and 4–8 weeksfor major revisions).
  3. Revised submissions are checked by the handling editor and, if necessary, re-evaluated by the original reviewers.

Stage 7: Final Decision and Copyediting

  1. After successful peer review, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision.
  2. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading, and layout to ensure stylistic consistency and technical accuracy.
  3. The corresponding author must approve the final version before publication.

Stage 8: Online First and Publication

  1. Once approved, articles are published online in the “Online First” section prior to full issue release.
  2. All published articles are assigned a DOIand indexed in the relevant databases.

Reviewer Ethics and Responsibilities

To uphold research integrity, all CETL reviewers are expected to:

  1. Maintain strict confidentiality regarding all manuscript materials.
  2. Provide objective, evidence-based, and respectful evaluations.
  3. Avoid any form of bias, prejudice, or conflict of interest.
  4. Decline reviews when they lack expertise or face competing interests.
  5. Report any suspicion of research misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, falsification, duplicate submission) to the editor.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions if they believe the review process was biased or procedurally flawed. Appeals should:

  1. Be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 daysof the decision.
  2. Clearly explain the reason for the appeal, supported by evidence.

The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the editorial board, will review the appeal and may assign an independent reviewer or make a final decision. The journal’s decision after appeal is final.

Integrity and Misconduct Handling

The journal strictly follows COPE flowcharts for addressing ethical issues such as plagiarism, data falsification, duplicate publication, or reviewer misconduct. Sanctions may include manuscript withdrawal, author notification, institutional reporting, or publication of an editorial notice.

Transparency and Continuous Improvement

CETL regularly reviews its peer review policy to ensure alignment with:

  1. COPE Core Practices
  2. Scopus and WoS editorial policies
  3. Emerging trends in open peer review and transparency in scholarly communication

Reviewer performance is also periodically evaluated based on timeliness, constructiveness, and adherence to ethical standards.