Peer Review Process

The peer review process is fundamental to maintaining the scholarly quality and academic integrity of research published in the Journal of the English Literator Society (ISSN 2455-393X). Through a structured and rigorous evaluation system, the journal ensures that all submitted manuscripts are thoroughly assessed. This process not only provides authors with constructive feedback to enhance their work but also upholds the journal’s standards for publishing research that is methodologically sound and intellectually significant.

Submission and Initial Screening

  1. Submission: Authors are required to submit their manuscripts electronically via the designated online submission platform. This system is designed to facilitate a straightforward and efficient submission experience.
  2. Initial Screening: Upon receipt, the editorial team conducts a preliminary assessment to determine whether the manuscript aligns with the journal’s aims and adheres to the submission guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be declined at this stage.

Plagiarism Detection

All submissions are screened for plagiarism using industry-standard detection software. Manuscripts found to have significant overlap with previously published work, or that demonstrate academic misconduct, will be rejected.

Double-Blind Peer Review

  1. Reviewer Assignment: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.
  2. Anonymity: The journal employs a double-blind review process, ensuring that both author and reviewer identities remain confidential throughout the review period.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  • Originality and Relevance: The importance and novelty of the research within its field.
  • Methodological Rigor: Clarity of research objectives, suitability of methodology, and strength of analytical approaches.
  • Contribution to Knowledge: The value and implications of the research findings.
  • Argumentation and Structure: Logical coherence, theoretical foundation, and clarity of presentation.
  • Ethical Compliance: Proper citation of sources and adherence to ethical research standards.

Reviewer Recommendations

Based on their evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without further changes.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor modifications prior to acceptance.
  • Major Revisions: Substantial changes are needed, and the revised manuscript will undergo further review.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s academic standards.

Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision, taking into account the reviewers’ recommendations and the journal’s policies. Authors are notified of the decision and receive detailed feedback, including any required revisions.

Revision Process

  • Minor Revisions: Authors are given a short period to address minor reviewer comments.
  • Major Revisions: Authors receive an extended timeframe to make significant changes, after which the revised manuscript is subject to additional review.

Final Approval and Publication

Once all required revisions have been made and approved, the manuscript undergoes a final review to ensure compliance with journal standards. Accepted papers are then scheduled for publication in the next available issue.

Disclosure of AI Use

  • Authors must disclose any use of generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) in writing, analysis, or data generation.
  • AI tools cannot be listed as co-authors; human authors remain responsible for all content.
  • Failure to disclose AI use may result in retraction or sanctions, in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Compliance with University and Ethical Standards

  • Manuscripts must comply with institutional review policies.
  • Authors are required to declare funding sources, conflicts of interest, and obtain necessary ethical clearances.

Turnaround Time

The peer review process typically takes between 1 and 3 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the extent of revisions required.

Ethical Considerations

The journal adheres strictly to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, ensuring that the review process is fair, impartial, and ethically sound.

Production and Dissemination

Accepted manuscripts undergo professional editing and formatting before being published online under an open-access model, ensuring broad dissemination within the academic community.

Confidentiality and Transparency

All manuscripts and communications during the review process are treated as confidential. The double-blind review system ensures impartiality, and the journal is committed to transparency and the highest ethical standards in publishing.

For any questions regarding the peer review process or policies, please contact: editorjels@outlook.com