Some policies in the review of JL3T (Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching):
1. Any submitted paper will be reviewed by reviewers.
2. Review process employs double blind peer review.
3. In the review process, reviewers consider the correspondence of title, abstract, introduction, method, findings and discussion, and conclusions. In addition, reviewers also consider the novelty, scientific impact and references used in the paper.

The response of the reviewers will be the basis for the Editor to conclude:
1. Accept Submission
2. Revisions Required
3. Resubmit for review
4. Resubmit elsewhere
5. Decline Submission

An article was rejected for publication due to various considerations, including:
1. The article does not fit the scope of journal.
2. The article does not follow the rules of writing scientific papers or author guidelines.
3. The fundamental methodological errors.
4. The author refuses to make suggestions of improvements provided by the reviewer without a logical basis.
5. There are indications of plagiarism of more than 25%.

 

Review Guidelines

1. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
2. Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
3. Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.
4. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.  Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. In the case of the double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
5. Promptness: The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of the manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.