Peer Review Process

Overview of the Double-blind Peer-reviewing Process:

Our reviewers and editorial team collaborate for ensuring the highest quality of the journal publications, which would constitute substantial contribution to the ongoing research in literature, linguistics, and translation. Their independent evaluations as well as invaluable comments and suggestions inspire innovative research work and aid authors in presenting their work in the clearest and most comprehensive manner.

To Follow are Guidelines that Run Through the Reviewing Process:

  1. Within one week of submission, a designated member of the editorial team will examine the manuscript to ensure that it is eligible for review. Submissions that are out of scope, outdated, or flawed will be returned to authors without reviewing. If eligible, the name(s) of author(s) will be removed, and the article will be given a reference code to enter the reviewing process. 
  2. Two reviewers will be approached to assess the submission based on the title and abstract of the article. A reviewer will either accept, decline, and/or recommend alternate reviewers.
  3. If a reviewer accepts, s/he will be able to access the full text of the article and an evaluative report template to complete and return. This will be done within 15-20 days. If the decision is unfavorable, the reviewer will need to provide ample justification as requested in the evaluative report.
  4. A reminder note will be sent to the reviewer one week before the deadline of submitting their report. If a reviewer foresees an inevitable delay, s/he may request a reasonable extension from the Editor-in-Chief. An unreasonable delay (exceeding 10 days after the deadline) may lead to withdrawing the reviewing task from a reviewer and seeking an alternate reviewer. 
  5. Evaluative reports by two reviewers will be shared with the author(s) along with a unified decision of either accepting the publication without modification, accepting the publication with minor modification, accepting the publication with major modification, or declining the publication.
  6. Authors who are required to amend their manuscripts, reflecting either major or minor modifications recommended by the reviewers, are expected to respond within two weeks of receiving the evaluative report by the Editor in-Chief. If authors foresee an inevitable delay, they may request a reasonable extension from the Editor-in-Chief. An unreasonable delay (exceeding 10 days after the deadline) may affect the prospects of their publication.
  7. Manuscripts undergoing major modifications are returned after amendment by authors to the relevant reviewer(s) for a speedy one-week verification. A subsequent favorable report by the verifying reviewer(s) would warrant publication of the manuscript. An unfavorable decision by the relevant reviewer(s) supported by ample justification will be studied by the Editor-in-Chief for a final decision.
  8. Manuscripts undergoing minor modifications may not need to be returned after amendment by authors to the relevant reviewers, especially in case of editorial modifications. A designated member of the editorial team will undertake a speedy one-week verification.
  9. Authors of manuscripts with successful completion of the reviewing process are notified with the incurring publication fees and available methods of payment.
  10. After payment of publication fees, the Editor-in-Chief would then send a formal letter of acceptance notifying the author(s) of the date as well as volume and issue number of manuscript publication.