Peer Review Process

JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, published by Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika (UNDIKMA), Indonesia, is committed to maintaining a rigorous, transparent, independent, and ethical peer review process. Peer review constitutes an essential component of the journal's editorial quality assurance system and supports the publication of original, reliable, and significant scholarly contributions.

JOLLT implements a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review model, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during manuscript evaluation. This approach is intended to reduce potential bias, protect reviewer independence, and support objective scholarly assessment.

Original Research Articles and Review Articles that successfully complete initial editorial screening undergo independent peer review. Manuscripts are evaluated for their relevance to the journal's focus and scope, originality, theoretical and empirical contributions, methodological rigor, analytical quality, clarity of presentation, and compliance with research and publication ethics.

This policy describes the journal's peer review model, manuscript screening, reviewer selection, evaluation criteria, review procedures, editorial decisions, revisions, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, appeals, and documentation of editorial activities.

PEER REVIEW COMMITMENT

JOLLT applies a double-anonymous peer review process. Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are evaluated by at least two qualified and independent reviewers before an acceptance decision is made.

Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions but do not independently determine publication outcomes. The Editor in Chief or an appropriately designated handling editor retains responsibility for decisions based on scholarly quality, research integrity, and the journal's editorial policies.

Peer review is conducted independently of authors' institutional affiliations, nationality, academic positions, and financial arrangements.

PEER REVIEW PROCESS AT A GLANCE

The principal components of JOLLT's peer review and editorial decision-making procedures are summarized below.

Component	Peer Review Policy
Journal	JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching
Publisher	Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika (UNDIKMA), Indonesia
Peer Review Model	Double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review
Manuscript Categories	Original Research Articles and Review Articles
Reviewers	At least two qualified, independent reviewers for manuscripts considered for acceptance
Initial Screening	Editorial assessment before external peer review
Reviewer Selection	Subject expertise, methodological competence, independence, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest
Evaluation Criteria	Originality, relevance, theoretical foundation, methodology, analysis, discussion, conclusions, and research integrity
Reviewer Recommendations	Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject
Editorial Decision	Editor in Chief or designated handling editor
Revision Procedure	Revised manuscript and point-by-point response to review comments
Review Management	Open Journal Systems (OJS)
Ethical Requirements	Confidentiality, objectivity, conflict disclosure, independence, and research integrity
Editorial Records	Reviewer assignments, reports, decisions, correspondence, and revision history maintained through OJS

Authors, reviewers, editors, and readers may use the following links to access the relevant sections of this policy.

Peer Review Procedures	Editorial Decisions and Integrity
1. Principles and Scope	7. Reviewer Recommendations
2. Peer Review Model	8. Manuscript Revision
3. Initial Editorial Screening	9. Editorial Decision-Making
4. Reviewer Selection and Assignment	10. Ethical Responsibilities
5. Peer Review Evaluation Criteria	11. Review Documentation
6. Review Timeline and Monitoring	12. Appeals and Complaints
Peer Review Workflow	13. Related Journal Policies

1. PRINCIPLES AND SCOPE OF PEER REVIEW

Peer review is an independent scholarly evaluation process intended to assist editors in determining whether submitted manuscripts meet the journal's academic, methodological, ethical, and publication standards.

JOLLT's peer review process aims to:

Ensure Scholarly Quality: Evaluate the academic significance, theoretical relevance, originality, and contribution of submitted research.
Evaluate Methodological Rigor: Assess whether the research design, data collection procedures, analytical techniques, and interpretation of findings are appropriate and sufficiently transparent.
Support Research Integrity: Identify potential concerns involving research ethics, reporting accuracy, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other forms of publication misconduct.
Promote Constructive Improvement: Provide authors with evidence-based recommendations to improve the clarity, validity, organization, and scholarly contribution of their manuscripts.
Maintain Editorial Independence: Support publication decisions based on scholarly merit rather than institutional influence, personal relationships, or financial considerations.
Ensure Fair Evaluation: Apply consistent standards to manuscripts submitted by researchers from different institutions, countries, and academic backgrounds.

Peer review applies to Original Research Articles and Review Articles submitted for consideration in JOLLT. Manuscripts that fail to satisfy the journal's basic editorial requirements may be returned or rejected before external review.

Successful completion of initial editorial screening does not guarantee that a manuscript will be accepted for publication.

2. PEER REVIEW MODEL

JOLLT adopts a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review model. Under this model, reviewers are not informed of the authors' identities, and authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities during manuscript evaluation.

The editorial team coordinates the anonymization process and takes appropriate measures to protect confidentiality and reviewer independence.

2.1. Double-Anonymous Review

The double-anonymous review process is intended to reduce the influence of personal and institutional factors that are unrelated to the scholarly quality of a manuscript.

Authors are required to prepare manuscripts for anonymous review by removing directly identifying information from the review copy, including:

Author names and institutional affiliations.
Corresponding author email addresses.
Acknowledgments containing information that directly identifies the authors.
Other identifying information that is unnecessary for scholarly evaluation.

Author details must be entered accurately in the appropriate OJS submission metadata fields or supplied through separate files when requested.

Editors and reviewers should avoid unnecessary attempts to identify the authors through manuscript content, metadata, or external searches.

2.2. Number of Reviewers

Each Original Research Article or Review Article considered for acceptance is evaluated by at least two qualified and independent reviewers.

Additional reviewers may be invited when specialized expertise is required, reviewer recommendations differ substantially, a manuscript has complex methodological characteristics, or further independent assessment is necessary.

Reviewer selection and assignment are coordinated by the Editor in Chief or designated handling editor.

2.3. Independence of Reviewers

Reviewers must be able to evaluate manuscripts objectively and independently.

Editors must consider relevant institutional, professional, personal, and financial relationships when selecting reviewers.

Where circumstances could reasonably compromise impartiality, the reviewer must disclose the concern and may be excluded from the assignment.

2.4. Confidentiality of the Review Process

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, unpublished research materials, and associated review information are confidential.

Access to these materials is restricted to authorized individuals involved in manuscript assessment and editorial management.

Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors during double-anonymous review, except where a different disclosure arrangement has been explicitly authorized under the journal's applicable procedures.

3. INITIAL EDITORIAL SCREENING

All submitted manuscripts undergo initial editorial screening before assignment to external reviewers. This stage is coordinated by the Editor in Chief or an appropriately designated handling editor.

The purpose of initial screening is to determine whether a manuscript satisfies the basic scholarly, ethical, and administrative requirements for further evaluation.

3.1. Scope and Manuscript Classification

Editors examine whether the manuscript corresponds to the journal's Focus and Scope and whether the selected manuscript category accurately reflects the scholarly nature of the submission.

Manuscripts that do not demonstrate a clear contribution to language-related scholarship or language education may be declined without external peer review.

3.2. Scholarly and Methodological Assessment

Initial editorial screening considers:

Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.
Originality and potential contribution to existing knowledge.
Appropriateness of the manuscript type.
Clarity and significance of the research problem, objectives, or review questions.
Adequacy of the theoretical and empirical foundations.
Appropriateness of the research methodology or literature review approach.
Clarity of research findings, interpretations, and conclusions.
Organization, academic English, and consistency with the journal's manuscript template.
Adequacy, relevance, and accuracy of citations and references.
Compliance with relevant research ethics and publication integrity requirements.

3.3. Originality and Similarity Screening

Submitted manuscripts are assessed for originality using Turnitin or another similarity detection system designated by the editorial office.

JOLLT applies a 20% overall similarity score as an initial screening benchmark. However, the similarity percentage alone does not establish plagiarism or determine automatic rejection.

Editors evaluate the nature, extent, context, and attribution of overlapping text before determining whether clarification, revision, further assessment, or rejection is appropriate.

Detailed procedures are available in the journal's Screening for Plagiarism and Originality Policy.

3.4. Initial Editorial Outcomes

Following initial screening, the handling editor may:

Assign the manuscript to qualified reviewers.
Return the manuscript for technical or administrative correction.
Request clarification concerning originality, research ethics, methodology, or other relevant information.
Reject the manuscript when it does not meet the journal's scope, scholarly standards, or essential ethical requirements.

Manuscripts considered suitable for external evaluation proceed to reviewer selection and assignment.

4. REVIEWER SELECTION AND ASSIGNMENT

Reviewers are selected based on their relevant disciplinary expertise, methodological competence, research experience, scholarly independence, and ability to provide constructive and reliable evaluations.

The Editor in Chief or designated handling editor is responsible for ensuring that assigned reviewers possess suitable expertise for the manuscript under consideration.

4.1. Reviewer Qualifications

Reviewer selection considers the following criteria:

Demonstrated expertise in the manuscript's subject area.
Relevant research experience and scholarly publications.
Competence in the research methodology or analytical approach used.
Ability to evaluate the manuscript independently and objectively.
Absence of conflicts of interest that could compromise impartiality.
Availability to provide a substantive review within the assigned deadline.

JOLLT may select reviewers from its published reviewer board or invite other suitably qualified experts when specialized expertise is necessary.

4.2. Reviewer Invitation

Invited reviewers receive the information necessary to determine whether they have the expertise, availability, and independence required for the assignment.

Reviewers should accept invitations only when they can undertake a competent and impartial evaluation.

Reviewers who cannot meet the assigned deadline or identify a relevant conflict of interest should promptly notify the handling editor.

4.3. Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editors must avoid assigning manuscripts to reviewers with relationships or interests that could reasonably compromise independent evaluation.

Potential conflicts may include recent scholarly collaboration, supervisory relationships, close personal associations, significant institutional interests, or direct professional competition.

Where a relevant conflict is identified, the editor must determine whether reassignment is necessary.

4.4. Additional Reviewers

When reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the editor may request clarification, seek an additional independent review, or conduct a further editorial assessment.

Additional reviewers may also be appointed when specialized methodological or disciplinary expertise is required.

5. PEER REVIEW EVALUATION CRITERIA

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to their scholarly significance, originality, methodological quality, research integrity, and clarity of presentation.

Review reports should identify strengths, limitations, methodological concerns, and specific recommendations supported by appropriate scholarly reasoning.

5.1. General Evaluation Criteria

Assessment Component	Evaluation Focus
Focus and Scope	Relevance to language studies, linguistics, applied linguistics, language teaching and learning, or related fields.
Originality	Novelty, research gap, and identifiable contribution to existing scholarship.
Research Problem	Clarity, significance, relevance, and justification of the research question or objective.
Literature and Theoretical Foundation	Accuracy, relevance, adequacy, and critical integration of previous scholarship.
Methodology	Appropriateness, rigor, transparency, validity, reliability, trustworthiness, and reproducibility where relevant.
Results and Analysis	Accuracy, clarity, sufficiency, and appropriateness of evidence and analytical procedures.
Discussion	Depth of interpretation, engagement with previous research, theoretical relevance, and scholarly implications.
Conclusions	Consistency with research objectives and support from the reported findings.
References	Relevance, accuracy, adequacy, and appropriate acknowledgment of previous scholarship.
Research Ethics	Appropriate ethical oversight, consent, confidentiality, and research integrity.
Academic Presentation	Organization, clarity, academic English, and compliance with the journal's reporting standards.

5.2. Evaluation of Original Research Articles

For Original Research Articles, reviewers should evaluate whether the study presents an identifiable scholarly contribution and whether the research design and analysis are appropriate to the research objectives.

Where applicable, reviewers may examine participant selection, sampling procedures, educational interventions, research instruments, evidence of validity and reliability, qualitative trustworthiness, statistical assumptions, analytical transparency, and consistency between the reported findings and conclusions.

Reviewers should consider whether claims concerning instructional effectiveness, language learning outcomes, linguistic phenomena, or other research findings are justified by the research design and available evidence.

5.3. Evaluation of Review Articles

For Review Articles, reviewers assess the clarity of the review objectives, appropriateness of the review design, transparency of literature identification and selection, analytical rigor, quality of evidence synthesis, and originality of the resulting scholarly contribution.

Systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and meta-analyses should be evaluated against methodological and reporting standards appropriate to their review type.

Reviewers should determine whether the manuscript moves beyond descriptive summaries to provide critical analysis, conceptual development, evidence synthesis, or defensible recommendations.

5.4. Constructive Review Reports

Reviewers are expected to provide specific, constructive, and evidence-based comments that assist authors and editors in identifying substantive strengths and weaknesses.

Recommendations should distinguish essential corrections from optional improvements and should avoid unsupported requests for additional citations or unnecessary expansion of the manuscript.

6. REVIEW TIMELINE AND EDITORIAL MONITORING

JOLLT manages manuscript evaluation through the Open Journal Systems platform. Review invitations, assignment deadlines, reviewer reports, editorial decisions, and author revisions are coordinated through the journal's editorial workflow.

The editorial team seeks to provide timely evaluation while maintaining the quality and independence of peer review.

6.1. Reviewer Deadlines

Reviewers are assigned a specific review deadline through OJS. The deadline is communicated when the reviewer accepts the invitation.

Reviewers are expected to submit their reports within the assigned period or promptly inform the handling editor when additional time is necessary.

Review deadlines may be adjusted according to the complexity of the manuscript, reviewer availability, and other legitimate editorial considerations.

6.2. Monitoring Review Progress

Handling editors monitor reviewer invitations, accepted assignments, review deadlines, and the submission of reviewer reports.

When an invited reviewer is unable to complete the assessment, the editor may extend the deadline, invite a replacement reviewer, or seek additional independent expertise.

6.3. Overall Editorial Processing Time

The time required to complete editorial assessment and peer review may vary according to manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the number of review rounds, the extent of revisions, and the time needed for final editorial evaluation.

Review deadlines should not be interpreted as a guarantee of acceptance, publication, or completion of the entire editorial process within a fixed period.

Authors receive manuscript status notifications and editorial decisions through OJS.

PEER REVIEW WORKFLOW

JOLLT follows a structured editorial workflow from manuscript submission to final publication. The following table summarizes the principal stages and their respective responsibilities.

Stage	Editorial Activity	Responsible Party
1. Submission	Submit the manuscript and required metadata through OJS.	Corresponding Author
2. Initial Screening	Evaluate scope, originality, formatting, scholarly quality, and ethical compliance.	Editor in Chief / Handling Editor
3. Reviewer Assignment	Select and invite qualified independent reviewers.	Handling Editor
4. Peer Review	Conduct independent manuscript evaluations and provide recommendations.	Assigned Reviewers
5. Editorial Evaluation	Consider reviewer reports and determine the appropriate editorial outcome.	Handling Editor / Editor in Chief
6. Author Revision	Submit a revised manuscript and point-by-point response.	Authors
7. Re-Evaluation	Assess revisions and request additional review when necessary.	Handling Editor / Reviewers
8. Final Decision	Determine acceptance or rejection based on scholarly and ethical requirements.	Authorized Editor
9. Production	Complete copyediting, layout, proofreading, and publication preparation.	Editorial and Production Team
10. Publication	Publish the approved article in the journal's designated issue.	Journal Management

7. REVIEWER RECOMMENDATIONS

Reviewers are expected to provide written assessments identifying the manuscript's strengths, limitations, and necessary improvements.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and are considered by the responsible editor when determining the manuscript's editorial outcome.

7.1. Types of Reviewer Recommendations

Recommendation	Description	Editorial Consideration
Accept	The manuscript satisfies the principal scholarly and methodological requirements without substantive revision.	May proceed toward acceptance after editorial verification.
Minor Revision	Limited improvements are needed in clarity, presentation, interpretation, references, or specific reporting details.	Authors are requested to revise and explain the changes.
Major Revision	Substantial improvements are necessary in the theoretical framework, methodology, analysis, interpretation, or scholarly reporting.	Further evaluation is required before an acceptance decision.
Reject	The manuscript contains fundamental scholarly or methodological limitations, falls outside the journal's scope, or does not satisfy essential publication requirements.	The editor evaluates the recommendation and determines the final decision.

7.2. Disagreement Between Reviewers

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the handling editor examines the arguments and evidence presented in each report.

The editor may seek clarification, invite an additional qualified reviewer, or conduct a further independent assessment.

Editorial decisions are not determined solely by the number of reviewers recommending acceptance or rejection.

7.3. Reviewer Reports and Editorial Judgment

The responsible editor considers the quality and substance of reviewer reports rather than treating recommendations as binding decisions.

An editorial decision may differ from an individual reviewer recommendation when the editor provides a defensible scholarly or ethical rationale.

8. MANUSCRIPT REVISION AND RE-EVALUATION

Authors receiving a revision decision must address the comments of reviewers and editors carefully and substantively.

The revision process is intended to improve manuscript quality and determine whether the concerns identified during peer review have been adequately resolved.

8.1. Requirements for Revised Manuscripts

Revised submissions must include:

A revised manuscript incorporating the relevant improvements.
A detailed point-by-point response to reviewer and editorial comments.
A clear explanation of how each substantive concern has been addressed.
A scholarly justification when a recommendation has not been adopted.
Supporting documentation, analyses, or additional information when requested.

Authors should ensure that the revised manuscript and response document are consistent and accurately describe the changes made.

8.2. Minor Revision

Manuscripts requiring minor revisions may be reassessed by the handling editor.

The editor may consult the original reviewers when specialized confirmation or further evaluation is necessary.

8.3. Major Revision

Manuscripts requiring major revision may undergo an additional review round to determine whether substantive concerns have been resolved.

The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to other qualified reviewers when appropriate.

8.4. Revision Deadlines

Authors must submit revised manuscripts within the deadlines communicated through OJS.

Authors who require additional time should request an extension through the editorial system before the revision deadline expires.

Failure to respond or submit required revisions within the agreed period may result in editorial closure or rejection of the submission, subject to appropriate consideration of the circumstances.

8.5. Rejection Following Revision

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

The editor may request further revision or reject the manuscript when substantial scholarly, methodological, or ethical concerns remain unresolved.

9. EDITORIAL DECISION-MAKING

The Editor in Chief or designated handling editor is responsible for making editorial decisions based on scholarly merit, reviewer evaluations, the adequacy of manuscript revisions, and compliance with the journal's editorial and publication ethics policies.

9.1. Decision Authority

Reviewer recommendations provide expert advice but do not independently determine the final publication decision.

The Editor in Chief or appropriately authorized editor retains responsibility for decisions concerning manuscript acceptance, revision, or rejection.

9.2. Decision Criteria

Editorial decisions consider:

Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.
Originality and scholarly significance.
Theoretical, empirical, or methodological contributions.
Research design and analytical rigor.
Reliability and interpretation of findings.
Quality and substance of reviewer reports.
Adequacy of author revisions.
Research ethics and publication integrity.
Clarity, completeness, and suitability for scholarly publication.

9.3. Editorial Independence

Publication decisions must remain independent of authors' nationalities, institutional affiliations, academic positions, personal relationships, and financial arrangements.

Payment of article processing charges or eligibility for fee waivers must not influence the outcome of peer review or editorial decisions.

9.4. Manuscripts Submitted by Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts authored or coauthored by editors or members of the JOLLT editorial team are subject to the same scholarly and ethical requirements applied to other submissions.

An editor who is an author or has a relevant conflict of interest must not participate in reviewer selection, confidential assessment, or publication decisions concerning the manuscript.

Such submissions must be handled independently by another appropriately qualified editor.

9.5. Final Acceptance

Acceptance is granted only when the responsible editor determines that the manuscript adequately satisfies the journal's scholarly, methodological, ethical, and editorial requirements.

Acceptance decisions are communicated to the corresponding author through OJS.

10. ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES IN PEER REVIEW

Reviewers and editors must uphold professional integrity, impartiality, confidentiality, and scholarly responsibility throughout the review process.

10.1. Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts as confidential scholarly documents.

Unpublished findings, research data, interpretations, and other manuscript materials must not be disclosed, distributed, or used for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers must not involve other individuals in the review process without prior permission from the editorial office.

10.2. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose relevant financial, institutional, professional, personal, or scholarly relationships that could compromise their impartiality.

Individuals with relevant conflicts must withdraw from the assignment or follow the conflict management measures determined by the editor.

10.3. Objectivity and Constructive Feedback

Review reports must be objective, evidence-based, respectful, and constructive.

Personal criticism, discriminatory comments, unsupported accusations, and inappropriate language are unacceptable.

Reviewers should provide specific explanations for their conclusions and recommendations.

10.4. Research Integrity Concerns

Reviewers who identify potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, manipulated results, misleading references, unethical research, or other possible misconduct must report their concerns confidentially to the handling editor.

Such concerns are assessed through JOLLT's applicable publication ethics procedures.

Reviewers must not independently contact authors or their institutions concerning suspected misconduct without editorial authorization.

10.5. Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished datasets, supplementary materials, reviewer reports, or editorial correspondence to external generative artificial intelligence services without appropriate authorization and safeguards.

Peer review assessments must reflect the reviewer's own independent scholarly judgment.

Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, and professional quality of their evaluations.

10.6. Citation Ethics

Reviewers must not recommend irrelevant citations to artificially increase the citation counts of particular authors, journals, or publications.

Requests for additional references should be based on a clear scholarly need and should improve the accuracy, completeness, or theoretical foundation of the manuscript.

11. REVIEW DOCUMENTATION AND EDITORIAL RECORDS

JOLLT maintains records of manuscript evaluation and editorial decisions through its Open Journal Systems editorial workflow.

These records support the consistency, accountability, confidentiality, and evaluation of the journal's editorial practices.

11.1. Editorial Records

Relevant records include:

Manuscript submission information and metadata.
Initial editorial assessments.
Reviewer invitations and assignments.
Reviewer responses and reports.
Reviewer recommendations.
Editorial decisions and correspondence.
Revised manuscript files.
Author responses to reviewer comments.
Final editorial decisions.

11.2. Confidentiality of Review Records

Access to confidential reviewer information and unpublished manuscript records is restricted to authorized editorial personnel.

Review records must not be disclosed publicly or shared with unauthorized individuals.

11.3. Editorial Quality Assurance

The editorial team may evaluate review records to assess reviewer responsiveness, timeliness, report quality, consistency of editorial procedures, and other aspects of journal management.

Review history may also support legitimate institutional quality assurance and journal accreditation processes, subject to applicable confidentiality and data protection requirements.

12. EDITORIAL APPEALS AND REVIEW CONCERNS

Authors who believe that an editorial decision involved a substantial procedural error, undisclosed conflict of interest, or demonstrable factual misunderstanding may submit a reasoned appeal through the journal's official editorial contact.

12.1. Submission of Appeals

An appeal should identify the manuscript and editorial decision, explain the concern clearly, and provide relevant supporting information.

Appeals must be submitted professionally and should distinguish substantive procedural concerns from general disagreement with reviewer opinions.

12.2. Independent Assessment of Appeals

The Editor in Chief or another appropriately independent editor evaluates whether further assessment is warranted.

Appeals involving a conflicted editor must be assessed by an editor who is not affected by the relevant conflict of interest.

12.3. Appeal Outcomes

An appeal may result in confirmation of the original decision, further editorial clarification, an additional review, or reconsideration of the manuscript when justified.

Submission of an appeal does not automatically result in acceptance or reversal of the original editorial decision.

12.4. Review Process Complaints

Authors and reviewers may communicate concerns involving confidentiality, conflicts of interest, inappropriate review comments, procedural irregularities, or other review-related issues through the journal's editorial contact channels.

Substantive concerns affecting research or publication integrity are addressed under the journal's Publication Ethics and Editorial Policies.

JOLLT's Peer Review Process and Editorial Decision Policy should be read in conjunction with the journal's other policies concerning authorship, originality, publication ethics, access, and scholarly publishing responsibilities.

Journal Policy	Access
Focus and Scope	View Focus and Scope
Author Guidelines	View Author Guidelines
Publication Ethics	View Publication Ethics
Screening for Plagiarism	View Plagiarism Policy
Editorial Team	View Editorial Team
Reviewer Board	View Reviewer List
Online Submission	View Submission Information
Editorial Contact	Contact Editorial Office
COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers	View COPE Guidance
COPE Core Practices	View COPE Core Practices

PEER REVIEW POLICY SUMMARY

JOLLT'S COMMITMENT TO INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW

JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching applies a double-anonymous peer review model to support objective, independent, and academically rigorous manuscript evaluation.

Original Research Articles and Review Articles considered for acceptance undergo evaluation by at least two qualified and independent reviewers. Reviewers assess originality, scholarly contribution, methodology, interpretation of findings, research integrity, and clarity of academic presentation.

Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions, while the Editor in Chief or designated handling editor retains responsibility for acceptance, revision, or rejection.

The journal maintains procedures for managing conflicts of interest, ensuring reviewer confidentiality, assessing manuscript revisions, documenting editorial activities, and considering substantive appeals.

Editorial Contact: JOLLT Editorial Office.