Editorial and Peer Review Policy

The editorial policy of the International Journal of Language, Education and Society (IJLES) is grounded in internationally recognized standards for scholarly publishing. IJLES aligns with the principles outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and supports transparency and best practices as defined by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME.

IJLES publishes original, unpublished scholarly work. All submissions undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure academic integrity, impartiality, and quality.

Submission Process

Authors should consult the Author Guidelines before submitting their manuscript
Manuscripts must be original, not under review elsewhere, and prepared according to journal standards

Initial Screening

All submissions are reviewed by the editorial team for relevance and quality
Manuscripts outside the journal’s scope or lacking scholarly merit may be declined without external review

Peer Review Procedure

Manuscripts passing initial screening are sent to at least two external reviewers
Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise and academic credentials
Reviews are conducted via the journal’s online system

Reviewers are expected to:

Assess originality, validity, significance, ethical compliance, and presentation quality
Provide a clear recommendation for publication
Submit a structured review report

Double-Blind Review

IJLES uses a double-blind peer review model:

Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other
This ensures unbiased evaluation and protects academic integrity

Ethical Standards

IJLES upholds strict ethical standards in all stages of publication. Reviewers and authors are expected to follow the journal’s Research and Publication Ethics Policy.

Editorial Decisions

Final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewer feedback. Possible outcomes include:

Accept as submitted
Accept with minor revisions
Revise and resubmit
Reject

For special issues, Guest Editors may recommend decisions, but the Editor-in-Chief retains final authority.

Revision Process

Authors are given a specific timeframe to submit revisions
Major revisions are re-evaluated by reviewers
Minor revisions are assessed by the editorial team

Appeals and Complaints

Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written explanation
Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, who may consult reviewers or assign a new reviewer
The Editor-in-Chief’s decision is final

Complaints

Complaints about editorial conduct or journal procedures should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief or publisher
All complaints will be acknowledged and addressed promptly

Responsibilities of Editors

Ensure fair, timely, and unbiased peer review
Make decisions based on scholarly merit, not personal or institutional affiliations
Maintain confidentiality of submitted manuscripts
Avoid using unpublished material for personal gain

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Conduct ethical, objective, and timely reviews
Avoid conflicts of interest (personal, financial, institutional, etc.)
Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts
Report suspected ethical violations (e.g., plagiarism) to the editorial team
Refrain from suggesting citations to their own work unless academically justified

For further guidance, reviewers may consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.