Peer Review Process

Rigorous, Fair, and Constructive Scholarly Evaluation

IJELS employs a double-blind peer review process as its standard model of manuscript evaluation. Under this model, the identities of both the submitting authors and the assigned reviewers are withheld from each other throughout the review process. This ensures that evaluations are based solely on the intellectual merit and scholarly quality of the work, free from the potential biases associated with institutional prestige, author reputation, gender, or nationality.

Double-blind review is the cornerstone of the journal's commitment to fairness, transparency, and the highest standards of scholarly integrity. All manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are subject to external peer review before any publication decision is made. IJELS does not publish any article - irrespective of the eminence of the authors or the perceived significance of the topic - without satisfactory completion of this review process.

Upon receipt of a submission, the editorial office conducts a preliminary assessment within five to seven working days. This assessment evaluates whether the manuscript: (a) falls within the stated scope of IJELS; (b) adheres to the structural and formatting requirements specified in the Author Guidelines; (c) demonstrates a minimum standard of academic writing quality in English; (d) includes all required submission components (cover letter, anonymised manuscript, title page, ethical clearance statement, conflict of interest declaration); and (e) is free from obvious evidence of plagiarism or duplicate submission.

Manuscripts that fail to meet these minimum requirements will be returned to the corresponding author with guidance for resubmission. Authors are advised that submission does not constitute a commitment to review, and that the editorial office's screening decision is final. Authors whose manuscripts pass this stage will receive an acknowledgement confirming progression to external peer review.

The assignment of reviewers is a critical responsibility of the handling editor. Reviewers are selected from IJELS's international panel of academic experts on the basis of their published expertise in the subject area of the submitted manuscript, their methodological competence, and the absence of any real or perceived conflict of interest with the submitting authors. Specifically, potential reviewers are excluded if they: have co-authored work with any of the listed authors within the preceding five years; currently share an institutional affiliation with any author; have a personal relationship with any author; or have any financial interest in the research outcomes.

IJELS invites a minimum of two and typically three independent reviewers per manuscript to ensure a robust and balanced evaluation. Reviewers are expected to respond to invitations within five working days. If an invited reviewer is unavailable or declines, an alternative expert is identified and approached promptly. Where reviewers' reports differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional opinion to assist in reaching a well-informed editorial decision.

Reviewers are asked to provide a thorough, constructive, and timely evaluation of the manuscript, typically within three to four weeks of accepting the invitation to review. The review should be conducted with the same rigour and respect for confidentiality that the reviewer would expect for their own submitted work. Reviewers must decline to review any manuscript for which they have a conflict of interest and must not share, distribute, or use any portion of a manuscript under review without the explicit written permission of the authors.

Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts against the following principal criteria:

• Originality and Contribution: Does the manuscript offer a substantive new insight, argument, or finding that advances knowledge in the field?
• Theoretical Grounding: Is the manuscript situated within an appropriate body of literature, and does it engage critically and accurately with relevant prior scholarship?
• Methodological Soundness: Are the methods appropriate to the research questions, adequately described, and applied with rigour and consistency?
• Clarity and Academic Quality: Is the manuscript written in clear, coherent, and appropriately formal academic English? Is the structure logical and the argumentation well-developed?
• Citation Accuracy and Completeness: Are all cited sources accurately referenced, and is the bibliography comprehensive and properly formatted?
• Ethical Compliance: Is there evidence of adherence to relevant ethical standards, including appropriate treatment of participants, data, and prior scholarship?

Following the receipt of all reviewer reports, the handling editor prepares a synthesis of the feedback and issues one of the following four editorial decisions: (a) Accept as Submitted - the manuscript is accepted for publication without further revision; (b) Minor Revision - the manuscript is provisionally accepted subject to the satisfactory completion of limited revisions, which are detailed in the editor's decision letter; (c) Major Revision - the manuscript requires substantial reworking before it can be considered further; re-reviewed manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers; (d) Reject - the manuscript is not suitable for publication in IJELS in its current or revised form; this decision may reflect fundamental concerns about scope, originality, quality, or ethics.

All decision letters include anonymised reviewer reports in full, accompanied by a synthesising statement from the handling editor. Authors are expected to treat reviewer comments with seriousness and professionalism. Where a decision of Minor or Major Revision is issued, authors must submit their revised manuscript together with a detailed, point-by-point response document addressing every comment raised by the reviewers and the editor. Revisions not accompanied by a response document will be returned without assessment.

IJELS targets a first decision within six to eight weeks of submission for manuscripts that proceed to external review, though this timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity. Authors are encouraged to contact the editorial office if they have not received an update within ten weeks. All parties in the review process - authors, reviewers, and editors - are bound by strict confidentiality obligations. Manuscripts under review are confidential documents; their contents must not be disclosed, shared, cited, or discussed with third parties without the explicit written consent of the authors.

Authors who believe that a rejection decision was reached in error - on the grounds of procedural irregularity, demonstrable factual inaccuracies in the reviewer reports, or evidence of reviewer bias - may submit a formal written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within fourteen calendar days of receiving the decision. Appeals must be clearly argued and supported by specific evidence; they are not an opportunity to resubmit a revised manuscript. Appeals are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief, whose decision is final, independently of the original review panel.