Peer Review Process

Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies (IJALS) is committed to the highest standards of peer review. The Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies (IJALS) follows the policies and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and abides by its Code of Conduct in dealing with potential cases of misconduct.

     All manuscripts are subject to a double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality of their underlying research methodology and argument. After submitting the manuscript by the author(s) in the journal management system, the manuscript will primarily be studied based on publishing experts (maximum a week). Please follow the Instructions to Authors carefully to expedite the manuscript as precise as codification guidelines in the system and then submit it. If it is accepted in the first stage, the manuscript will be assessed by the editor-in-chief.

     The acceptance criteria for all papers are the quality and originality of the research and its significance to our readership. Upon submission, an e-mail message or letter from the Journal Management System will acknowledge manuscript receipt. All submitted manuscripts are evaluated by one of our editors within one month to determine suitability for review in IJALS. If accepted for external review, manuscripts are peer-reviewed by two anonymous reviewers and the editor. Typically, one has broad general knowledge of the field, and one has expertise in the particular topic or methodology. Within six months, authors can expect to receive one of four decisions: (a) manuscript acceptance, (b) acceptance with revisions, (c) nonacceptance with an invitation for revision and resubmission for another round of review, or (d) rejection and recommendation for submission to a different publication.

     The Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies (IJALS) attempts to keep the review process as short as possible to enable the rapid publication of new scientific data. We seek to provide authors with an understanding of the perceived strengths and weaknesses of their manuscript, the basis for the decision, and advice on how to proceed. By following this procedure, we expect to make sound decisions on all manuscripts and provide consistently thorough, constructive, and fair reviews of all manuscripts. It should be noted that the recommendations of reviewers are advisory to the editor, and final responsibility for acceptance or declination rests with the editor.