Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (J-FLTAL) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic excellence and publication ethics. To ensure the quality, validity, and integrity of the research we publish, all submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous and objective peer-review process.

1. Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, every manuscript first undergoes an initial in-house screening by the Editors. During this stage, the editorial team evaluates the manuscript based on:
● Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope.
● Adherence to formatting and submission guidelines.
● Originality, language clarity, and basic academic standards.

The Editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts without formal review if they are deemed clearly unsuitable, fundamentally flawed, or if they fall outside the journal's academic scope. All submissions are also screened through plagiarism detection software at this stage; manuscripts containing plagiarized or fraudulent material will be immediately rejected.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review Process
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are subjected to a double-blind peer review. This means that the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are strictly concealed from each other throughout the entire evaluation process to prevent any biases and ensure an objective assessment.

● Reviewer Selection: The Editors assign the manuscript to at least two independent expert reviewers who possess relevant specialized knowledge in the manuscript's subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and a strict absence of any conflict of interest.
● Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript’s originality, methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, theoretical contribution, and relevance to the fields of foreign language teaching and applied linguistics.
● Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript as a privileged and confidential document. They are prohibited from sharing, discussing, or using any unpublished data or ideas contained within the manuscript prior to publication.

3. Reviewer Timelines
To facilitate a timely publication process, reviewers are generally requested to complete their evaluations within 6 weeks. If major revisions are subsequently required, reviewers are typically given 3 weeks to assess the resubmitted, revised manuscript.

4. Editorial Decision
Reviewers provide comprehensive feedback and recommend a course of action to assist the Editors. The final authority and responsibility to accept or reject a paper rest entirely with the Editorial Board. Based on the peer review reports, the final decision will be one of the following:
● Accepted: The manuscript is accepted for publication without any further changes.
● Accepted with Minor Revisions: The manuscript will be accepted once the author adequately addresses minor corrections or clarifications noted by the reviewers.
● Accepted with Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant rewriting, restructuring, or re-analysis. It must be revised and successfully pass a subsequent round of review before final acceptance.
● Rejected: The manuscript lacks sufficient scholarly merit, contains fundamental flaws, or fails to meet the journal's publication standards.