Guide to the Double-Blind Peer Review Process at Applications of Language Studies
Thank you for considering *Applications of Language Studies (ALS)* for your research. We understand that submitting your work involves significant effort, and we strive for a fair, rigorous, and constructive review process. This guide explains our **Double-Blind Peer Review** system, designed to ensure impartiality and focus on the quality of your scholarship.
What is Double-Blind Peer Review? * **Blindness on Both Sides:** Neither the **Authors** nor the **Reviewers** know each other's identities during the review process. * **Author Anonymity:** Reviewers do not see your name, affiliation, contact details, or any other identifying information within the manuscript or its files. * **Reviewer Anonymity:** You, as the author, will not be told the names of the reviewers who evaluated your manuscript. Their comments will be shared anonymously. * **Goal:** This minimizes potential bias based on an author's reputation, institution, gender, nationality, or previous relationships, ensuring the work is judged solely on its academic merit, originality, methodology, clarity, and contribution to the field of Applied Language Studies.
The Review Process Step-by-Step
1. Submission & Initial Check:** * You submit your manuscript through our online system. * Our Editorial Office performs an initial technical check (formatting, scope, completeness, adherence to anonymization guidelines - see below). **This is NOT a judgment on academic quality.** * **Possible Outcome: Desk Rejection.** If the manuscript clearly falls outside the journal's scope, violates ethical guidelines, is incomplete, or is not anonymized, it may be rejected at this stage by the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor. You will be notified promptly.
2. **Editorial Assignment:** * If the manuscript passes the initial check, the Editor-in-Chief assigns it to an appropriate **Associate Editor (AE)** with expertise in your specific area within Applied Language Studies (e.g., SLA, Sociolinguistics, Corpus Linguistics, Language Pedagogy, Discourse Analysis).
3. **Reviewer Selection & Invitation:** * The AE identifies 2-4 potential **Reviewers** who are experts in the manuscript's topic and methodology. * Reviewers are invited based on their expertise, lack of conflict of interest, and past reviewing reliability. They are sent the anonymized manuscript abstract to assess if they are qualified and available.
4. **Double-Blind Review:** * Once reviewers accept the invitation, they receive the **fully anonymized manuscript** (PDF or Word file). * Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript based on the journal's criteria (significance, originality, methodology, clarity, literature review, conclusions, adherence to ALS style). They typically complete this within 3-5 weeks. * Reviewers submit their confidential reports and recommendations to the AE via the online system. Their identities remain hidden from you and each other.
5. **Decision Recommendation:** * The AE carefully reads all reviewer reports and the manuscript. * The AE synthesizes the reviews, considers any conflicting opinions, and makes an initial **decision recommendation** to the Editor-in-Chief. Common recommendations include: * **Accept (Rare at first submission)** * **Minor Revisions:** Acceptable pending straightforward clarifications or small edits. * **Major Revisions:** Potentially acceptable but requires significant substantive changes, additions, or clarifications. Resubmission required. * **Reject:** The manuscript is not suitable for publication in ALS based on the reviews and AE assessment. * The Editor-in-Chief reviews the AE's recommendation and the reviewer comments before making the final decision.
6. **Author Notification:** * You will be notified of the decision via email and the online submission system. This notification will include: * **The Editorial Decision** (e.g., Revise & Resubmit, Reject). * **The Anonymous Reviewer Reports:** You will receive the full, anonymized comments from each reviewer. These are the core of your feedback. * **Editorial Comments (Optional):** The AE or Editor-in-Chief may add summary comments, highlight key points from the reviews, or provide specific guidance for revision. * **Timeline:** We aim to complete the first review round within 8-12 weeks of submission. Complex manuscripts or reviewer availability can sometimes cause delays. You can usually check the status online.
### Your Role in Ensuring Anonymity (CRUCIAL!)
**To maintain the double-blind standard, YOU MUST prepare your manuscript anonymously before submission:**
* **Remove ALL Author Identifiers:** * Delete names, affiliations, and contact details from the **title page** AND **within the manuscript text**. * Remove acknowledgments (e.g., "We thank Dr. X for...") or funding statements that could identify you or your institution. *You can add these back in AFTER the manuscript is accepted.* * Ensure author names are not embedded in file properties (use "Save As" or check file metadata before uploading). * **Cite Your Own Work Anonymously:** * When citing your own previously published work, refer to it in the third person (e.g., "Previous research has shown (Author, Year)..."). * List these citations in the References section as normal (e.g., Author, A. (Year). Title...), but **do not** use phrases like "In our previous work..." or "(Smith, 2020, p.5 - *where Smith is you*)". * **Avoid Identifying Filenames:** Save your manuscript file with an anonymous title (e.g., "Manuscript_AppliedLing_KeyTopic.docx" instead of "Smith_Jones_ALS_Manuscript.docx").
### Understanding the Reviewers' Feedback
* **Constructive Criticism:** Reviewers are asked to provide specific, constructive feedback to help improve your work, even if recommending rejection. * **Focus on the Work:** Remember that reviewers critique the *manuscript*, not you personally. Approach the feedback objectively. * **Contradictory Comments:** It's common to receive differing opinions from reviewers. The AE will weigh these in their recommendation. * **Key to Revision:** Carefully address *all* substantive points raised by the reviewers and editors in any revision. Provide a detailed point-by-point response letter explaining how you addressed each comment when resubmitting.
### Possible Decisions & Next Steps
* **Accept / Minor Revisions:** Congratulations! Follow the specific instructions to finalize your manuscript. * **Major Revisions:** This is a positive outcome indicating potential acceptance. Address *all* reviewer and editor concerns thoroughly in your revision and response letter. Resubmit by the deadline. * **Reject:** While disappointing, reviewer comments provide valuable feedback for improving your manuscript for submission elsewhere. We appreciate your contribution to the field.
### Our Commitment
* **Fairness & Rigor:** We are committed to an unbiased evaluation based solely on scholarly merit. * **Confidentiality:** All submissions and reviews are treated confidentially by editors and reviewers. * **Constructive Feedback:** We aim to provide feedback that strengthens your work. * **Respect:** We expect reviewers to provide respectful critiques, and we expect authors to respond professionally to feedback.
**Contact:** For specific questions about your manuscript's status *after submission*, please contact the Editorial Office. For general policy questions, visit our website.
Thank you for entrusting your work to *Applications of Language Studies*. We value your contribution to advancing knowledge in our field!
