Peer Review Process

What is peer review?

Reviewers play a central role in scholarly publishing. Peer review helps validate research, establish a method by which it can be evaluated, and increase networking possibilities within research communities. Despite criticisms, peer review is still the only widely accepted method for research validation.

Types of peer review

Single blind review

The names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is the most common type by far.

  • Reviewer anonymity allows for impartial decisions – the reviewers will not be influenced by the authors.
  • Authors may be concerned that reviewers in their field could delay publication, giving the reviewers a chance to publish first.
  • Reviewers may use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily critical or harsh when commenting on the authors’ work.

Double blind review

Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous.

  • Author anonymity prevents any reviewer bias, for example based on an author's country of origin or previous controversial work.
  • Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered on the basis of the content of their papers, rather than their reputation.
  • Reviewers can often identify the author through their writing style, subject matter or self-citation.

Open review

Reviewer and author are known to each other.

  • Some believe this is the best way to prevent malicious comments, stop plagiarism, prevent reviewers from following their own agenda, and encourage open, honest reviewing.
  • Others see open review as a less honest process, in which politeness or fear of retribution may cause a reviewer to withhold or tone down criticism.

 

Peer Review Process, which applies to the Journal of Language and Translation follows the following procedure:

 

Double-blind peer review

 

1) The corresponding author submits the paper to the journal of Language and Translation via online submission panel.

2) The journal checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylisations. If not the manuscript is sent back to author/s for resubmission. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point. Editor in Chief also checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.

3) The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained – commonly this is 2 or 3.

4) Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.

5) The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

(The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision)

6) The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments.

7) If accepted, the paper is sent for the publication process. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the editor includes constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review is done by the handling editor.