Review Process

Review Process

At JELS, we employ a meticulous double-blind peer-review process to guarantee impartial evaluation of all submitted manuscripts. Our reviewers, experts in their respective fields, offer valuable feedback that assists authors in elevating the quality of their work.

Initial Editorial Review: Every proposal submitted for publication is initially reviewed by at least one editor. If the paper aligns with our editorial policies and meets a minimum quality threshold, it proceeds to the next stage.

Selection of Reviewers and Their Responsibilities: The reviewers for JELS are chosen from scholars who are authorities in the subjects of the articles. They are selected for their objectivity and excellence in scientific knowledge. All selected reviewers are provided with clear guidelines on JELS’s expectations. They are required to complete a review form and, if necessary, prepare a separate report.

The reviewing process is expected to adhere to academic, honest, courteous, precise, and constructive standards. The fundamental characteristics of a high-quality review include the following:

  • Reviewers should identify both the weaknesses and strengths of the work concerning its organization and methodology, and provide comments on each of these aspects.
  • Considering the possibility of limited data available to the author, reviewers should critique the author's data processing abilities in a fair and constructive manner.
  • Reviewers should evaluate the work's strengths and weaknesses in a written form of communication, irrespective of its organization, methodology, results, and data processing.
  • Reviewers should express their opinions on whether the work contains ethically questionable content or falls below the standard of scientific value.
  • Reviewers are expected to offer helpful suggestions for the improvement of the work.
  • Reviewers should provide constructive and professional critiques aimed at assisting the authors.
  • The review should present a balanced perspective and content to arrive at a decision regarding acceptance or the need for revision.
  • Reviewers are also expected to identify works that lack proper citations or fail to reference other relevant works. They should specify any parts of the manuscript that may have been reproduced by the author without citation. Additionally, referees should highlight any significant similarities between the work submitted to JELS and another study published in a different journal.
  • Reviewers should refrain from direct contact with the author. In principle, the journal seeks reviews from two authoritative scholars, but it is understood that their opinions may not always align with those of the editor.
  • Reviewers are requested to use the JELS Review Form for their review comments.

Double-Blind Peer Review: The paper is then sent to two reviewers for a comprehensive evaluation, following our double-blind peer-review policy. This process aims to provide authors with expert opinions on their work and, if necessary, constructive suggestions for improvement.

Review Management: Our peer-review process is efficiently managed through the OJS platform.

Internal and External Review

  • Manuscripts submitted to the journal, whether of academic or practitioner nature, undergo an initial internal review by the Editorial Committee. This step determines whether the manuscript qualifies for an in-depth review by external expert reviewers.
  • Once deemed suitable for further evaluation, the manuscript is assigned to two external reviewers for a comprehensive peer review.
  • JELS upholds a double-blind peer review policy, ensuring the confidentiality of manuscripts under review.
  • Reviewers are given four weeks to assess the manuscripts, and their feedback is subsequently shared with the authors.

Review Outcomes

  • Reviewers may recommend accepting the article as is, outright rejection, or suggest major or minor revisions.
  • For articles requiring revisions, authors are requested to address the reviewers' comments.

The Editor then evaluates the revised manuscript to determine its suitability for the publication process or potential rejection.