Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review constitutes the cornerstone of scholarly integrity and quality assurance in academic publishing. Applied Linguistics Inquiry extends its profound gratitude to reviewers for their indispensable contributions to the advancement of knowledge in applied linguistics. These guidelines formalize our shared commitment to ethical, constructive, and efficient evaluation practices, aligned with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) standards. Adherence to these principles ensures the journal maintains its reputation for excellence and global scholarly impact.

 

Core Ethical Principles

Reviewers are expected to uphold the following foundational obligations:

 

  1. Objectivity and Constructiveness

    • Evaluate manuscripts solely on scholarly merit, methodological rigor, theoretical contribution, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
    • Provide specific, actionable feedback aimed at strengthening the manuscript. Critique arguments and evidence—not authors.
    • Balance critical assessment with professional courtesy: Be frank yet gracious, recognizing the effort invested by authors.
     

  2. Confidentiality

    • Treat all manuscripts, correspondence, and review materials as strictly confidential.
    • Do not share, discuss, or disseminate any aspect of the review process with third parties, including colleagues, without explicit editorial authorization.
     

  3. Conflict of Interest Disclosure

    • Immediately declare any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative, or personal) that may compromise impartiality.
    • Recuse yourself from review if conflicts exist. Suggest alternative qualified reviewers where appropriate.
     

  4. Timeliness

    • Complete reviews within 28 days of acceptance unless otherwise negotiated with the editorial office.
    • Promptly notify editors if unable to meet deadlines or if the manuscript falls outside your expertise.
 
 

Review Process Protocol

Double-Blind Evaluation Framework

  • All submissions undergo double-blind peer review. Author and reviewer identities are concealed throughout the process.
  • Reviews are submitted via the journal’s online portal. Comments intended solely for editors (e.g., ethical concerns) should be indicated in the designated confidential section.
 

Review Structure and Content

Your evaluation must address:

  • Scholarly Significance: Originality, theoretical/conceptual contribution, and relevance to applied linguistics.
  • Methodological Rigor: Appropriateness of design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation.
  • Contextualization: Engagement with current literature and alignment with the journal’s aims (see Aims & Scope ).
  • Clarity and Structure: Logical flow, accessibility to an international readership, and adherence to scholarly conventions.
 

Providing Actionable Feedback

  • Reference precisely: Cite page/line numbers for all critiques or suggestions.
  • Organize comments: Number points sequentially; separate major revisions from minor corrections.
  • Language sensitivity:
    • Write clearly and accessibly for non-native English speakers. Avoid jargon or culturally specific idioms.
    • Flag only pervasive grammatical, syntactic, or orthographic errors requiring professional editing (do not copy-edit).
     
  • Recommendation rationale: Justify your editorial recommendation (Accept, Revise, Reject) with evidence from the manuscript.
 
 

Practical Responsibilities

  • Verify scope alignment: Confirm the manuscript addresses core domains of applied linguistics (e.g., language acquisition, policy, discourse analysis, translation studies) as defined in the Aims & Scope .
  • Decline appropriately: If invited but unqualified or unavailable, notify the editorial office within 48 hours and suggest vetted alternatives.
  • Uphold reciprocity: Treat authors’ work with the same respect you expect for your own scholarship.
  • Confidentiality of outcomes: Editorial decisions are communicated exclusively by the Editor-in-Chief. Do not disclose recommendations or deliberations.
 
 

Editorial Workflow

  • Reviews are submitted to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes final decisions in consultation with the editorial committee.
  • Authors receive anonymized reviewer comments regardless of acceptance status. Constructive feedback is valued even for rejected manuscripts.
  • Reviewers may be consulted for reassessment of revised manuscripts.