The Electronic Journal of Language and Education (EJLE) adopts an independent and impartial peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and reliability of the scientific studies it publishes. The journal's review process is conducted in accordance with the principles of transparency, confidentiality, and academic ethics in scholarly publishing.
EJLE adopts a double-anonymized peer review model. Under this model, the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors throughout the review process.
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers assess the scientific quality of the manuscript and its compliance with the journal's publication criteria.
The reviewer reports are examined by the editor, who is responsible for making the final decision regarding the manuscript.
All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo initial editorial screening before being sent for peer review.
At this stage, manuscripts are assessed for their alignment with the journal's aims and scope, scientific originality, compliance with research and publication ethics, similarity reports, and formatting requirements.
Manuscripts that do not meet the necessary requirements may be rejected without being sent for peer review or returned to the authors for the required revisions.
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are submitted to at least two independent reviewers selected according to the subject and methodology of the research.
Reviewers are selected based on their areas of expertise, scientific publications, academic experience, and competence in evaluating the relevant subject.
Reviewers must not have any conflicts of interest involving the authors or the research that could compromise the impartiality of the review process. Reviewers with conflicts of interest must decline the review invitation and inform the editorial office.
Authors may request that certain individuals not be appointed as reviewers if they believe a conflict of interest exists, provided that they explain their reasons. Such requests are evaluated by the editor.
Reviewers evaluate the manuscripts assigned to them objectively, impartially, and constructively in accordance with scientific criteria.
The evaluation considers the originality and scientific contribution of the study, its theoretical framework, the clarity of the research questions, the appropriateness of the methodology, the adequacy of the data collection and analysis procedures, the reliability of the findings, the scientific basis of the discussion and conclusions, and the adequacy of the relevant literature.
Reviewers are expected to base their evaluations on concrete scientific justifications, clearly identify areas requiring improvement, and provide constructive recommendations to authors.
Reviewers are given 30 days to complete their evaluations. If reviewers fail to complete their evaluations within the specified period, the editor may appoint new reviewers.
The review period may vary depending on reviewer availability, the need for additional reviewer opinions, and the extent of the required revisions.
Authors can track the review status of their manuscripts through the online manuscript submission system.
Following their evaluations, reviewers may recommend acceptance, minor or major revisions, or rejection of the manuscript.
In cases of disagreement between reviewer reports, the editor evaluates the reports together with their scientific justifications and may consult a third independent reviewer if necessary.
The final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is made by the editor, taking into account the reviewer reports and the scientific quality of the study. Positive recommendations from reviewers do not guarantee publication.
For manuscripts requiring revisions, the reviewers' and editor's comments are communicated to the authors. Authors are expected to complete the required revisions within 30 days.
Authors must submit a detailed response report addressing the reviewers' and editor's recommendations along with the revised manuscript. Changes made to the manuscript must be indicated using the Track Changes feature.
Authors may explain their scientific justifications in the response report for any evaluation or revision recommendations with which they disagree.
Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the same reviewers or to different independent reviewers if deemed necessary. Reviewers may assess the adequacy of the requested revisions and request further modifications.
If authors are unable to complete the required revisions within the specified period, they may request an extension from the editorial office by providing their reasons.
Manuscripts, data, and evaluation reports shared during the peer review process are kept confidential. Reviewers may not share manuscripts submitted to them with third parties or use unpublished information for personal or academic gain.
Reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of information obtained during the review process and disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editorial office.
Editors and reviewers conduct their scientific evaluations independently of authors' personal characteristics, institutional affiliations, and other factors unrelated to scientific assessment.
Reviewers are prohibited from uploading unpublished manuscripts submitted to them to generative artificial intelligence systems due to confidentiality and data security risks.
Authors may appeal editorial decisions regarding their manuscripts by providing concrete scientific justifications. Appeals must be submitted to the editorial office through the online manuscript submission system. The editorial office examines appeals in light of the relevant reviewer reports and the justifications provided by the author.
The consideration of an appeal does not imply that the manuscript will be accepted or subjected to another round of peer review. Complaints and appeals concerning research and publication ethics are evaluated in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics Policy.