Decision-Making Process

Introduction

At the Journal of Language, Literature & Social Affairs (JLLSA), the editorial decision-making process is designed to ensure academic excellence, impartiality, and transparency. Every manuscript is subjected to a rigorous and systematic assessment to evaluate its quality, originality, and alignment with the journal’s scope.

Initial Submission Screening

  1. Preliminary Editorial Review
    Upon receipt, manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the editorial office to verify compliance with the journal's submission and formatting requirements. This includes:
    • Correct structure and formatting (e.g., title page, abstract, keywords).
    • Adherence to JLLSA’s plagiarism policy (maximum 10%) and consideration of the HEC’s 19% threshold.
    • Completion of author details, ethical declarations, and license agreements.
  2. Scope Alignment Check
    The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor assesses whether the manuscript falls within the thematic scope of JLLSA and contributes meaningfully to the fields of language, literature, or social sciences. Submissions deemed out of scope may be rejected without external review.

Peer Review Process

  1. Assignment to Reviewers
    Manuscripts that clear the initial screening are sent for double-blind peer review. At least two reviewers with relevant expertise are selected to provide unbiased, constructive evaluations.
  2. Evaluation Criteria
    Reviewers assess submissions based on several academic benchmarks:
    • Novelty and scholarly contribution.
    • Coherence and clarity of argumentation.
    • Methodological soundness and validity of findings.
    • Ethical compliance and academic integrity.
    • Overall contribution to the discipline.
  3. Reviewer Recommendations
    Review outcomes typically fall into one of the following categories:
    • Accept – Suitable for publication with minimal or no revisions.
    • Minor Revisions – Revisions needed are minor and do not require a full re-review.
    • Major Revisions – Substantial changes are necessary; a re-evaluation will follow.
    • Reject – The manuscript does not meet publication standards or journal relevance.

Editorial Decision

  1. Synthesis of Reviewer Feedback
    The handling editor reviews and consolidates comments and recommendations from peer reviewers. If reviews are contradictory or inconclusive, an additional reviewer may be consulted or an editorial board discussion initiated.
  2. Final Verdict
    The Editor-in-Chief, guided by reviewers' insights and editorial judgment, makes the final decision. Possible outcomes include:
    • Accept – Approved for publication.
    • Minor Revisions – Conditional acceptance pending minor modifications.
    • Major Revisions – Requires substantial changes before reconsideration.
    • Reject – Not suitable for publication in current or revised form.

Revision and Resubmission

  1. Minor Revisions
    Authors are typically provided a 2–4 week period to address minor feedback. Revisions are reviewed by the editor without initiating a full re-review.
  2. Major Revisions
    Authors receiving major revision requests are given up to 4–8 weeks to revise. Depending on the nature and extent of changes, the revised manuscript may undergo another round of peer review.
  3. Re-submission After Rejection
    Rejected manuscripts are generally not reconsidered. However, if the editorial team provides detailed revision advice, resubmission may be allowed and treated as a new submission.

Communication of Decisions

  1. Notification to Authors
    Authors receive a formal decision letter with detailed feedback from reviewers and editors. For accepted manuscripts, guidance for final formatting and submission is provided.
  2. Appeal Process
    If an author believes a decision was made based on flawed reasoning or bias, an appeal may be submitted in writing. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, whose re-evaluation will result in a final decision.

Post-Acceptance Procedures

  1. Final Submission Requirements
    Upon acceptance, authors must submit the final, revised version of the manuscript, ensuring full compliance with JLLSA's formatting and licensing standards (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
  2. Copyediting and Proof Approval
    The manuscript undergoes a professional copyediting process for clarity, grammar, and style. Authors receive proofs for final approval before publication.
  3. Online Release
    Once approved, the manuscript is published in the upcoming issue of the journal and made accessible via the official JLLSA platform.

Ethical Oversight

  1. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest
    All parties involved in the publication process—authors, reviewers, and editors—must disclose any potential conflicts that could influence objectivity.
  2. Research Ethics Compliance
    Submissions involving human or animal research must adhere to ethical standards and institutional guidelines. Unethical practices result in rejection or further investigation.
  3. Data Transparency
    The editorial team is committed to ensuring that all published research maintains transparency in data reporting. Suspected data falsification is subject to investigation and possible retraction.

This structured and ethical decision-making process at JLLSA is central to maintaining the trust of our academic community. We strive to ensure that every manuscript is treated with the integrity and scholarly rigor it deserves.