Peer Review Policy

The practice of peer review is crucial in ensuring the publication of high-quality research papers. All manuscripts submitted to IJELLH (International Journal of English Language, Literature, and Humanities) undergo a thorough and rigorous peer review process, as outlined below:

Initial Screening

Before proceeding with full peer review, IJELLH conducts an initial screening of submitted manuscripts. This screening involves checking for plagiarism, grammatical errors, and adherence to the aims and scope of the journal. Manuscripts that fail to meet these general requirements may be rejected at this stage. The initial screening process typically takes 5-7 business days. If a manuscript meets the minimum criteria, it proceeds to the next phase of peer review.

Peer Review Policy

 It is a process by which experts evaluate scholarly works and analyze the content.  Its objective is to ensure and maintain the high-quality standards of our publishing house.

The Peer Review Policy works as another checkpoint to make sure that only good and original quality work is published. All submitted manuscripts are read by our Editorial Staff who are experienced in their fields. We select only those research papers that meet our standards are sent for peer review and finally for publication.

Peer reviewers are ideally experts in their fields who are not part of the journal’s editorial staff. When a manuscript is submitted to IJELLH, a double-blind peer review process is followed to accomplish the basic requirements determined by our protocol.


 Double-Blind Review

At IJELLH, we adhere to a double-blind review process. In this approach, both the author and the reviewer remain anonymous to each other. The purpose of this peer-review process is to ensure unbiased evaluations and to select research work of high quality and originality for publication. The decision to publish a manuscript is the prerogative of the journal editor or the editorial board.

During the review, the reviewers evaluate the manuscript's argument construction, clarity of language, and content, asking questions such as:

  1. Is the main research question relevant and interesting?
  2. How original is the topic, and what does it add to the subject area compared to existing literature?
  3. Is the paper well-written and easy to comprehend?
  4. Do the conclusions align with the presented evidence and address the research question?
  5. If the paper challenges the academic consensus, is the case presented substantial and credible?
  6. Do tables, figures, and language enhance understanding or are they unnecessary?
  7. Are there any major flaws, factual errors, or ethical issues?

They may also consider the following:

  • Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
  • Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
  • Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
  • Does the paper follow a clear and organized structure?
  • Is the paper an appropriate length?
  • Are the key messages short, accurate, and clear?

 Upon closer readings, the reviewer will be looking for any major issues:

  • Are there any major flaws?
  • If the experimental design features prominently in the paper, is the methodology sound?
  • Is the research replicable, reproducible, and robust? Does it follow best practices and meet ethical standards?
  • Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
  • Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
  • Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
  • Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough to accurately assess the work?
  • Are there any ethical issues?

 The reviewer will also note minor issues that need to be corrected:

  • Are the correct references cited? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
  • Are there any factual, numerical, or unit errors? If so, what are they?
  • Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labeled?

Possible outcomes of peer review

The journal’s editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and uses this information to arrive at a decision. In addition to the comments received from the review, editors also base their decisions on:

  • The journal's aims and audience.
  • The state of knowledge in the field.
  • The level of competition for acceptance and page space within the journal.

Reviewers forward the review report to the Editor in chief, who will make a final decision to accept or reject the article. Once the Editor in Chief  makes the decision on the manuscripts presented for review, the decision will be one of the following:

  • Accept
  • Accept with minor revision
  • Revise and Resubmit
  • Reject

Once a manuscript is accepted for publication, the author receives an Acceptance Letter and a publication agreement, along with an APC (Article Publication Charge) link. After APC payment, the final proofread manuscript is sent to the author for approval.

Minor suggestions/corrections regarding formatting can be made at this stage. After receiving the updated/corrected manuscript from the author, we will promptly resend the proofread manuscript for final approval.

If an author makes significant changes in their manuscript and submits an updated version, it will be considered a new submission in terms of the initial screening process. However, the updated manuscript will be sent to the same reviewers who previously reviewed the initial version for re-evaluation. During the re-review process, the reviewers will assess the manuscript based on the changes made by the author and re-evaluate its suitability for publication.

Once the final approval is received back from the author, the manuscript will be considered ready for the final publication process. At this stage, our editorial team will carry out the necessary preparations for the final publication, including typesetting, layout adjustments, and other production-related tasks.

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript, and this decision will be communicated to the author.

Once the final decision is made, the Editor-in-Chief conveys the outcome to the author. If the manuscript is accepted, the author will receive an Acceptance Letter along with the publication agreement and further instructions for the final publication process. In cases where the peer reviewers have recommended rejection, the Editor-in-Chief carefully considers their feedback and the manuscript's suitability for publication. After a thorough evaluation, if the Editor-in-Chief determines that the manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or align with its scope and objectives, they will convey the decision of rejection to the author.

How long it takes to complete the review process?

At IJELLH, we prioritize the timely and efficient review of manuscripts to ensure a seamless publication process. Our review process consists of two main stages: initial screening and peer review.

During the initial screening, our editorial team carefully evaluates each submitted manuscript for plagiarism, grammar, and adherence to the journal's aims and scope. This screening process typically takes five to seven business days. Manuscripts that meet the minimum criteria are then forwarded for further peer review.

For the peer review stage, we send the manuscript to two to three expert reviewers simultaneously. The reviewers thoroughly assess the manuscript's quality, originality, significance, and adherence to ethical standards. The peer review process generally takes 40 to 50 business days.

Overall, from the time of manuscript submission to the completion of the review process, the average duration is approximately 2 to 4 months. It is important to note that the review process duration may vary depending on factors such as the complexity of the research, the responsiveness of reviewers, and the number of revisions required.