Peer Review Policy & Process

Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly uses a double-masked peer review process in accordance with COPE's Code of Conduct and Best Practices. Additionally, the journal adheres to the codes and principles of publication conduct outlined in the document titled "Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing" released earlier and updated on 15 September 2022 by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). You may find journals' policies and journal-specific information for Peer Reviewers here.

Peer Review Process

The decision to publish a paper is based on an in-house editorial assessment and an external double-masked peer review process. Initially, an editorial committee of two or more editorial team members, including the Editor-in-Chief, assesses all papers. The primary purpose is to decide whether to send a paper for external peer review and to give a rapid decision on those that are not.

Editorials and Letters may be accepted at this stage. Still, in all other cases, the decision is to reject the paper or send it for external peer review by at least 3 experienced professional peer reviewers. Papers which do not meet basic standards or are unlikely to be published irrespective of a positive peer review, for example because their novel contribution is insufficient or the relevance to the discipline is unclear, may be rejected at this point to avoid delays to authors who may wish to seek publication elsewhere. Occasionally, we return a paper to the author with requests for revisions to help editors decide whether to send it out for review. Authors can expect a decision at this stage within 1–2 weeks of submission.

Manuscripts going forward to the review process are reviewed by members of an external expert panel. All such papers will undergo double-masked peer review by at least 3 reviewers, under the supervision of the journal Editor-in-Chief. We take every reasonable step to conceal author identity during the review process, but authors must ensure that details of prior publications, etc., do not reveal their identity.

We aim to complete the review process within 4-8 weeks of the decision to review, although delays can occur; authors should allow at least 6 weeks from submission before contacting the journal. The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to make the final decision regarding acceptance. You may find the journal's review process.

Reviewers Role

Reviewers are pivotal contributors to journals' advancement. In the peer review process, which follows a double-masked referee system, reviewers are urged not to disclose their identity in any form.

A reviewer should immediately decline to review an article if they feel the article is technically unqualified,c  cannot complete the review promptly, or has a conflict of interest.

All submissions should be treated as confidential; editorial approval may be given for any outside submissions received. No reviewer should pass on an article submitted to them for review to another reviewer for their own benefit; they should decline it immediately. Reviewers, as the foundation of the quality process, should ensure that published articles are high quality and original. He may inform the editor if he finds that the article submitted to him for review is under consideration in any other publication to their knowledge.

There are no hard-and-fast rules for analyzing an article; this can be done on a case-by-case basis, considering the worthiness, quality, and originality of the submitted article. 
In general, the following may be checked in a review:

• Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to author guidelines 
• Purpose and Objective of the article 
• Method of using transitions in the article 
• Introduction given and the conclusion/ suggestions provided 
• References provided to substantiate the content 
• Grammar, punctuation, and spelling
• Plagiarism issues 
• Suitability of the article to the need 

A reviewer's decision determines whether an article is accepted or rejected, and it is a major element of the peer review process. We ask all reviewers to review submitted articles in detail and provide unbiased comments, which helps improve the quality of our journals.

Guidance for Peer Reviewers

All manuscripts are double-masked reviewed. At the Journal of Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly, we believe peer review is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research.

As a reviewer, you will be advising the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision. We will let you know our decision. Even if we do not accept an article, we would like to share constructive comments that might help the author improve it.

All unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents. If we invite you to review an article, please do not discuss it even with a colleague. When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should fill out the journal's review form. Journals try to respond to every peer review invitation. If you feel the paper is outside your area of expertise or you are unable to devote the necessary time, please let the editorial office know as soon as possible so that they can invite an alternative reviewer. At this stage, you may wish to nominate an appropriately qualified colleague. Please remember, if an author's manuscript is with reviewers who have not responded to the peer-review request, the author will not receive a timely decision.

Please read the journal Aims and Scope and the Author Instructions with care. Consider whether the paper is suitable for the journal to which it is submitted. The journal's Aims and Scope are available under the "Journal Info" menu.

The essential feature of any review is that it is helpful and constructive, and we urge reviewers to be robust but polite when making comments to authors. The Peer reviewers should provide an objective critical evaluation of the paper in the broadest terms practicable. Reviewers need to make a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief on deciding the manuscript. Your report must contain your detailed answers to the journal questions in the reviewing form. If you believe the paper needs revisions before it is acceptable, please suggest how to improve it. Likewise, if you feel that a paper is not good enough and has no real prospects of being improved sufficiently to be published, you should recommend rejection. 
You should also:

• Write clearly so you can be understood by people whose first language is not English
• Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers
• Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
• If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate clearly which these are
• Treat the authors the way you would like your own to be treated

The Reviewer Score Sheet is seen by the editors only, and the comments will be shared with the authors. You should also indicate if the manuscript requires its English grammar, punctuation, or spelling to be corrected. You can find the journal's reviewing diagram at the end of this page.

Privacy and Confidentiality 

In the journal Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly, manuscripts must be reviewed with due respect for authors' confidentiality. By submitting their manuscripts for review, authors entrust editors with the results of their scientific work and creative effort, on which their reputation and career may depend. Authors' confidentiality is violated by disclosure of the confidential details during review of their manuscript. Reviewers also have a right to confidentiality, which the editor must respect. Confidentiality may have to be breached if dishonesty or fraud is alleged but otherwise must be honored. Editors must not disclose information about manuscripts (including their receipt, content, status in the reviewing process, criticism by reviewers, or ultimate fate) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. This includes requests to use the materials for legal proceedings.

Editors must make clear to their reviewers that manuscripts sent for review are privileged communications and are the private property of the authors. Therefore, reviewers and editorial staff must respect the authors' rights by not discussing the authors' work or their ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers must not make copies of the manuscript for their files or share it with others, except with the editor. Reviewers should return or destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting reviews. Editors should not keep copies of rejected manuscripts. Reviewer comments should not be published or otherwise publicized without permission of the reviewer, author, and editor.

Conflict of Interest in Reviewing Process

Although we use double-masked peer review, the research sphere can be a small world. This means many reviewers may know the author out of familiarity with their work. You can certainly give a fair assessment of an article that a friend or competitor writes, but:

• If there is a significant conflict of interest, you should reveal this to the editor
• If the conflict of interest causes a large positive or negative bias, then it is better to decline the review request
• Avoid personal judgment and criticism at all times; review the article itself. This is more likely to be well received by the author and lead to better work.
• Every editor will appreciate honesty about conflicts of interest, even if they then have to look for a replacement reviewer.

Please email the Editorial Office at the journal's email address if you have any concerns about conflicts of interest or ethical issues with the paper.

Review Procedure Diagrams

The article review process diagram is as follows: