Peer Review Procces

Eduistiqomah in Language Education (EILE) applies a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic integrity, and relevance of every manuscript published by the journal. In the double-blind system, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

1. Initial Submission

All manuscripts must be submitted through the journal's online submission system. Authors are required to ensure that their manuscripts comply with the Author Guidelines, journal scope, manuscript structure, and ethical standards.

The submitted manuscript should contain the required sections:

Title, Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Method, Results and Discussion, Conclusion, and References.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for further consideration.

The screening includes:

  • Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.
  • Originality and academic contribution.
  • Compliance with the manuscript structure and formatting requirements.
  • Quality and clarity of the abstract and keywords.
  • Adequacy of the research methodology.
  • Basic quality of results and discussion.
  • Completeness and consistency of references.
  • Compliance with publication ethics.
  • Similarity and plagiarism screening.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external peer review.

3. Plagiarism and Similarity Check

Before peer review, submitted manuscripts may be screened using an appropriate plagiarism or similarity detection system.

The editorial team evaluates the similarity results rather than relying solely on a similarity percentage. Any substantial overlap, plagiarism, inappropriate text reuse, duplicate publication, or other academic misconduct may result in rejection or further investigation.

4. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Expertise in the subject area.
  • Relevant academic and research experience.
  • Publication and scholarly competence.
  • Absence of conflicts of interest.
  • Ability to provide objective and constructive evaluation.

The journal normally seeks at least two independent reviewers for each manuscript.

5. Double-Blind Review

EILE uses a Double-Blind Peer Review system.

Under this system:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
  • Reviewer comments are communicated through the editorial system.
  • Reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality.

Authors should therefore ensure that identifying information is removed from the anonymous manuscript file when required.

6. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on several academic criteria, including:

A. Relevance and Originality

  • Does the manuscript fit the scope of EILE?
  • Does the study address an important research problem?
  • Does it demonstrate originality or novelty?

B. Theoretical Contribution

  • Is the theoretical or conceptual foundation appropriate?
  • Does the manuscript engage critically with relevant literature?
  • Does the study contribute to existing knowledge?

C. Methodology

  • Is the research design appropriate?
  • Are participants, data sources, instruments, and procedures adequately explained?
  • Are the data analysis techniques appropriate?
  • Are validity, reliability, or trustworthiness adequately addressed?

D. Results

  • Are the findings clearly presented?
  • Are the findings supported by appropriate evidence?
  • Are tables and figures accurate and relevant where applicable?

E. Discussion

  • Are the findings adequately interpreted?
  • Are they compared with relevant previous research?
  • Are theoretical and practical implications clearly explained?
  • Is the contribution of the study clearly demonstrated?

F. Conclusion

  • Does the conclusion correspond to the research objectives?
  • Does it accurately reflect the findings?
  • Are implications and recommendations appropriately presented?

G. References

  • Are the references relevant and credible?
  • Are recent scholarly sources adequately represented?
  • Are citations and references consistently formatted according to APA 7th Edition?

H. Language and Presentation

  • Is the manuscript clearly and logically written?
  • Is the academic language appropriate?
  • Is the manuscript professionally presented?

7. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

  1. Accept Submission – The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantial revision.
  2. Minor Revision – The manuscript requires limited corrections or improvements.
  3. Major Revision – The manuscript requires substantial revision before it can be considered further.
  4. Resubmit for Review – Significant changes are required and the revised manuscript should undergo another review.
  5. Reject – The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements.

The reviewer's recommendation is advisory. The final decision remains the responsibility of the editor.

8. Editorial Decision

After receiving the reviewers' reports, the editor evaluates:

  • Reviewers' recommendations.
  • Quality and significance of the manuscript.
  • Authors' responses to reviewer comments.
  • Methodological and theoretical rigor.
  • Compliance with journal policies.
  • Ethical and originality considerations.

The editor may request additional review or consultation when reviewer recommendations substantially differ.

9. Revision Process

If revisions are required, authors must revise the manuscript according to the editor's and reviewers' comments.

Authors should provide a Response to Reviewers document explaining:

  • Each reviewer comment.
  • The response of the authors.
  • The specific revision made.
  • The location of the revision in the revised manuscript.

Authors should respond professionally and academically to all comments. If authors disagree with a suggestion, they should provide a clear scholarly justification.

10. Second-Round Review

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when substantial revisions are required.

The second-round review assesses whether:

  • Reviewer comments have been adequately addressed.
  • Major methodological or conceptual weaknesses have been corrected.
  • The manuscript has improved substantially.
  • The revised manuscript is suitable for publication.

Additional rounds of revision may be conducted when necessary.

11. Acceptance

A manuscript may be accepted when the editor determines that:

  • The manuscript meets the journal's scope.
  • The research demonstrates sufficient originality and academic contribution.
  • Methodological and analytical issues have been adequately addressed.
  • Reviewer comments have been satisfactorily resolved.
  • The manuscript complies with ethical and formatting requirements.

Acceptance is formally communicated to the corresponding author through the journal's submission system.

12. Copyediting and Production

After acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting and production.

During this stage, the editorial team may check:

  • Grammar and language consistency.
  • Formatting and layout.
  • References and citations.
  • Tables and figures.
  • Author information.
  • Metadata and publication details.

Authors may be asked to review the final version and correct factual or typographical errors before publication.

13. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to EILE are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers and editors must not:

  • Share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals.
  • Use unpublished information for personal research.
  • Discuss manuscript contents outside the review process.
  • Reveal the identities of authors or reviewers.

Reviewer comments should be professional, constructive, objective, and relevant to the manuscript.

14. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

A reviewer should decline the assignment if there is a personal, professional, institutional, financial, or academic relationship that could compromise impartiality.

15. Review Timeline

EILE aims to conduct the peer-review process efficiently while maintaining rigorous academic standards. The review duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and editorial workload.

Authors can monitor the progress of their manuscript through the journal's online submission system.

16. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, and ethical standards. Decisions should not be influenced by the author's nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religion, political views, or other irrelevant personal characteristics.

17. Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor has the final authority regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript.

The peer-review process is designed to ensure that articles published in Eduistiqomah in Language Education (EILE) meet high standards of academic quality and make a meaningful contribution to the development of language education research and practice.