The peer-review process in the JSLI is the primary mechanism for ensuring the credibility, originality, and scientific rigor of published research. Reviewers play a critical role by providing analytical, unbiased, and ethically grounded evaluations. This document outlines a comprehensive, structured, and professional framework to support reviewers in delivering clear, constructive, and high-quality assessments.

 

1. Core Principles of Peer Review

Confidentiality

• All submitted manuscripts, data, and supplementary materials must be treated as strictly confidential.
• Reviewers may not use any information obtained through peer review for personal or academic advantage.

Impartiality

• Reviews must be free from personal, institutional, ideological, or political bias.
• Any potential conflict of interest must be reported to the editorial office immediately.

Transparency and Reasoning

• Comments should be evidence-based, logically argued, and clearly articulated.
• Reviewers should explain the rationale behind acceptance, revision requests, or rejection.

Professional Ethics

• Using manuscript content for personal research is strictly prohibited.
• Reviewers must report any suspected ethical issues, including plagiarism, data manipulation, or questionable methodologies.
• Feedback should always maintain professional tone, clarity, and respect.

Timeliness

• Reviewers are expected to respond to review invitations promptly and submit reports within the assigned timeframe.
• If unable to review, reviewers should inform the editorial office immediately.

Professional Conduct

• Reviews must be free from prejudice or personal motivation.
• Inappropriate language and unfair judgments are unacceptable.
• Reviewers are encouraged to treat authors with the same fairness they expect for their own work.

 

2. Review Stages

     A) Initial Assessment

• Relevance to the Journal’s Scope: Determine whether the manuscript fits the journal’s academic aims and thematic focus.
• Manuscript Structure: Confirm the presence of essential components (abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, findings, discussion, conclusion).
• Writing Quality: Evaluate clarity, coherence, organization, and correctness of language.

     B) Content Evaluation

• Originality and Contribution: Assess whether the study offers new insights, perspectives, or findings.
• Methodological Soundness: Evaluate the appropriateness of the methods, adequacy of sampling, and validity of tools used.
• Data and Analysis: Ensure that analyses are accurate, logical, and aligned with research questions.
• Literature Foundation: Determine whether the references are credible, up-to-date, and relevant.
• Alignment of Findings with Study Objectives.

     C) Feedback to Authors

• Provide precise, constructive, and actionable recommendations.
• Avoid vague statements, emotional language, or personal criticism.
• Organize comments clearly and section-by-section to assist the author in revisions.
• Maintain anonymity at all stages.

     D) Final Recommendation

• Accept (with or without minor revisions)
• Minor revision
• Major revision (with detailed guidance)
• Reject (with clear justification)

 

3. Common Reasons for Acceptance

• Relevance to journal scope
• Novelty and intellectual contribution
• Clear and coherent writing
• Strong methodological foundation
• Valid data analysis and coherent conclusions
• Use of credible and updated references

 

4. Common Reasons for Rejection

• Weak structure or organization
• Insufficient or flawed methodology
• Outdated or unreliable references
• Unsupported findings
• Misalignment with the journal's scope
• Poor writing or extensive language errors

 

Additional Notes:

Reviewers should ensure that authors have properly disclosed any use of AI tools in the manuscript. Undisclosed or inappropriate AI-generated content should be reported to the editors.

 

Click here to download the Reviewer Guidelines file.