Review Guidelines

General Guidelines
Reviewers have to meet some general guidelines before processing the review by giving attention on the following guidelines:

AI Restriction. Artificial Intelligence (AI) generated or assisted review comments are strictly prohibited. All comments must reflect the reviewer’s independent scholarly judgment.
Novelty Policy. Manuscripts must not be rejected solely due to lack of novelty, as long as they are scientifically robust and technically sound.
Confidentiality. All manuscripts and review materials must be treated as confidential and must not be shared or discussed without editorial permission.
Review Timeframe. Reviewers are expected to complete the review within 4 weeks. Please inform the editorial office promptly if an extension is required.
Constructive and Professional Tone. Reviews should be clear, evidence-based, and constructive, aimed at improving the manuscript rather than merely judging it.

Structural Evaluation
Reviewers should evaluate the formal quality and scientific soundness of the manuscript by addressing the following points:

Importance for the Scientific Community. Write 3–4 sentences explaining the manuscript’s relevance, contribution, and potential impact on language and communication studies.
Title Suitability. Assess clarity, specificity, and alignment with the manuscript content. Suggest an alternative title if necessary.
Abstract Quality. Evaluate whether the abstract is comprehensive (aim, method, data, findings, implications). Suggest additions or deletions where needed.
Scientific Correctness. Assess whether the manuscript is logically argued, methodologically sound, and scientifically accurate.
References. Evaluate whether references are sufficient, relevant, and recent. Suggest additional references if appropriate.
Language Quality. Assess whether the English language is suitable for scholarly communication and identify sections requiring revision.

Substantial Evaluation
Reviewers should assess the intellectual contribution and scholarly depth of the manuscript by considering:

Scholarly Controversy. Identify what controversy or debate the article addresses and how effectively it frames its scholarly significance.
Conceptual or Methodological Contribution. Evaluate what change, transformation, or advancement in theory, method, or application the manuscript offers and how convincing the argument is.
Engagement with Current Trends. Assess how well the manuscript connects with and critically engages current academic or practical trends.
Urgency and Timeliness. Evaluate whether the study addresses a pressing or timely issue and how clearly this urgency is demonstrated.
Proposed Solution or Insight. Assess the feasibility and sustainability of the proposed solution or contribution in both academic and practical contexts.

Ethical Evaluation
Reviewers must explicitly state their assessment using the required formulations:

Ethical Issues. If none, write: “There are no ethical issues in this manuscript.”
If present, describe them clearly and in detail.
Competing Interests. If none, write: “There are no competing interests in this manuscript.”
Plagiarism. If none, write: “No plagiarism issues have been detected.” If suspected, provide supporting evidence or links.

Scoring Evaluation
Reviewers must assign one overall score (0–10) based on the following scale:

The score should reflect the overall quality of the manuscript, not isolated issues.

Recommendation and Declaration
Reviewers have to provide additional information on their recommendation and declaration to the manuscript:

Provide optional/general comments summarizing the main strengths, weaknesses, and recommendation.
Declare competing interests. If none, write: “I declare that I have no competing interest as a reviewer.”

Reviewer Details and Certification
Reviewer details are mandatory for e-certificate generation.

Only assigned reviewers are possible to access the e-cerificate form available in OJS.
Incomplete or incorrect information will result in no e-certificate issuance, and e-certificates cannot be modified after generation.

More details on review guidelines, please download REVIEW FORM.