Overview

The Journal of Research in Language and Translation (JRLT) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly quality, academic integrity, and research excellence. To ensure the publication of rigorous and original research, all manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

The peer-review process is designed to provide authors with constructive feedback, ensure fairness and objectivity, and support the publication of high-quality research that contributes meaningfully to the fields of language studies, linguistics, translation studies, applied linguistics, language education, and related disciplines.

Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor.

During this stage, the manuscript is assessed for:

• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
• Originality and scholarly significance;
• Compliance with submission requirements and formatting guidelines;
• Academic quality and clarity of presentation;
• Ethical compliance;
• Suitability for external peer review.

The journal reserves the right to reject manuscripts at this stage without external review if they:

• Fall outside the scope of the journal;
• Fail to meet minimum scholarly standards;
• Exhibit significant methodological weaknesses;
• Demonstrate substantial language deficiencies;
• Fail to comply with ethical or submission requirements.

Such decisions are commonly referred to as desk rejections.

Similarity Check

Prior to external review, manuscripts may be screened using plagiarism-detection software.

The editorial team evaluates any identified text similarity to determine whether it reflects:

• Properly cited material;
• Acceptable scholarly overlap;
• Potential plagiarism;
• Redundant publication;
• Self-plagiarism.

Manuscripts that raise concerns regarding originality may be rejected or returned to authors for clarification.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the editorial screening are sent to independent expert reviewers.

JRLT follows a double-blind peer-review model, meaning that:

• Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors;
• Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

To preserve anonymity, authors should remove identifying information from the manuscript file before submission.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on:

• Subject expertise;
• Research experience;
• Publication record;
• Absence of conflicts of interest.

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

Additional reviewers may be invited when necessary.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

Originality

• Novelty of the research question or contribution.
• Advancement of knowledge within the field.

Relevance

• Alignment with the journal’s scope.
• Significance to researchers and practitioners.

Literature Review

• Adequacy and currency of the literature reviewed.
• Engagement with relevant scholarship.

Methodological Rigor

• Appropriateness of research design.
• Validity and reliability of methods.
• Transparency of procedures.

Analysis and Interpretation

• Soundness of data analysis.
• Appropriateness of interpretations and conclusions.

Organization and Clarity

• Logical structure.
• Quality of academic writing.
• Clarity of presentation.

Contribution to the Field

• Theoretical significance.
• Practical implications.
• Potential impact on future research.

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers typically recommend one of the following outcomes:

• Accept without revisions;
• Accept with minor revisions;
• Revise and resubmit (major revisions);
• Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors should:

• Address all reviewer comments carefully;
• Submit a revised manuscript;
• Provide a detailed response document explaining how each comment was addressed.

Failure to respond adequately to reviewer comments may result in rejection.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Editorial Decision

After consideration of reviewer reports, the Editor-in-Chief will make one of the following decisions:

Accept

The manuscript is accepted for publication.

Minor Revisions

The manuscript requires limited modifications before acceptance.

Major Revisions

Substantial revisions are required before a final decision can be made.

Reject and Resubmit

The manuscript has potential but requires extensive redevelopment and a new review process.

Reject

The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.

The Editor-in-Chief retains full authority over all editorial decisions.

Review Timeline

While review times may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity, JRLT strives to provide timely editorial decisions.

Authors will be informed of significant delays whenever possible.

The journal continuously works to ensure an efficient and rigorous review process.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to JRLT are treated as confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers must not:

• Share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals;
• Use unpublished information for personal advantage;
• Disclose reviewer identities without permission.

Confidentiality is maintained throughout the editorial and review process.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment.

Individuals with conflicts of interest should decline participation in the review process.

Examples include:

• Personal relationships with authors;
• Collaborative research relationships;
• Financial interests;
• Institutional affiliations that may affect objectivity.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide objective and constructive feedback;
• Evaluate manuscripts solely on scholarly merit;
• Identify relevant published work not cited by the authors;
• Alert editors to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or ethical concerns;
• Respect confidentiality.

Reviewers should avoid personal criticism and maintain professional standards throughout the review process.

Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a misunderstanding or procedural error may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief.

Appeals should provide a detailed justification and supporting evidence.

The journal reserves the right to seek additional independent opinions when reviewing appeals.

The Editor-in-Chief’s decision following the appeal process shall be final.

Commitment to Fairness

JRLT evaluates all submissions solely on academic merit, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance to the journal's scope.

Editorial decisions are made without discrimination based on nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, institutional affiliation, age, disability, or political beliefs.

The journal is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, and ethical peer-review process that supports scholarly excellence and contributes to the advancement of research in language and translation studies.