|
Journal of Language Teaching and
Research |
|
|
Home Past Issues (2015-2020)
Past Issues (2010-2014) |
Reviewer Guidelines
All of a journal¨s content should be subjected to peer review. Peer review is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers expert in the field.
Reviewer plays an essential role in the peer review process. Efforts of reviewers are the key for the objectives of a fair and timely review process for all of our manuscripts and the publications of only papers of the highest quality. We greatly appreciate reviewers for their help with meeting these important objectives.
1. Fairness of Review
Judgments should be objective. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest.
Reviewers shall regard a submitted manuscript as a privileged and confidential document and not meant to be public, and so should not use, share or disclose unpublished information in a manuscript except with the permission of the authors. The review process shall ensure that all authors have equal opportunity for publication of their papers.
2. Type of Peer Review
All the journals of Academy Publication employ double blind review. The reviewers of the manuscript do not know the identity of the author(s), and the author(s) do not know the identity of the reviewers. |
|
|
|
3. Instructions for Reviewers
The Editor will
solicit you with the title and an abstract of the submission via email. Please
acknowledge by email whether you can serve as reviewer. Please, let the Editor
know soon. Once you agree to review the submission, the Editor will send you a
file by email. Reviewed articles should be treated confidentially.
Please, download and edit the Review Form and email it to the Editor with your review. Your review will be sent in a report to authors, usually verbatim. Please provide sound, constructive reviews, expressing your criticisms with civility. Reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited. Please remember to acknowledge whatever is good in the manuscript. Please, keep a copy of the review documents for your use in case a revision is submitted by the authors. Reviewers have 3 weeks to review a major revision.
4. Deadlines for Regular Review
， Reviewers are given 6 weeks to review the submission. ， Reviewers are given 3 weeks to review the major revision. ， If you need more time, please let the Editor know when you expect to complete the review.
5. Conference Version
Submissions previously published in conference proceedings are eligible for consideration provided that the author informs the Editors at the time of submission and that the submission has undergone substantial revision. In the new submission, authors are required to cite the previous publication and very clearly indicate how the new submission offers substantively novel or different contributions beyond those of the previously published work. Author should supply a copy of the previous version to the Editor, and provide a brief description of the differences between the submitted manuscript and the previous version.
The Academy Publication¨s guidelines are that the submission should contain a significant amount of new material, that is, material that has not been published elsewhere. New results are not required; however, the submission should contain expansions of key ideas, examples, elaborations, and so on, of the conference submission. The paper submitting to the journal should differ from the previously published material by at least 30 percent.
E-mail questions or comments to support@academy-publication.com
|
|
|
Copyright © 2015-2024 Academy Publication ！ All Rights Reserved.
|
|
