Peer Review Process

The European Journal of Language and Literature Studies (EJLS) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the highest standards of academic integrity and quality. Every manuscript that passes the initial assessment is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. The identities of both reviewers and authors remain confidential throughout the evaluation. This method guarantees impartiality and fairness in the assessment of all submitted manuscripts.

Manuscripts are handled by the Editor-in-Chief or a Co-Editor-in-Chief (the handling editor), who makes the editorial decisions.

1. Selection of Reviewers

Registration and expertise: Prospective reviewers register on the journal’s online platform by submitting their CV. The editors evaluate their expertise in the relevant field before confirming their role as reviewers.
Criteria for reviewers: Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic qualifications, research experience and expertise in the subject area of the manuscript (for example the language, period, literature or linguistic field concerned). Reviewers are not members of the journal’s editorial staff and have no conflict of interest with the authors.
Assignment: Reviewers are matched to manuscripts by topic, language and method, and only when no competing interest exists.

2. Internal Review Process

Preliminary assessment: Upon receipt of a manuscript, the handling editor checks its fit with the aims and scope, its article type, its originality (including a similarity check with iThenticate) and its basic quality. Manuscripts that are out of scope, have a high similarity index or serious structural deficiencies are declined at this stage with the reasons; the others proceed to peer review, and the author receives an acknowledgement (not an acceptance letter).
Anonymisation: Before review, the authors’ names, affiliations and contact details are removed from the manuscript and its file properties.
Double review: The anonymised manuscript is sent to at least two independent reviewers through the online platform. The reviewers work separately; each evaluates the manuscript against the criteria below and provides a detailed report.
Differing recommendations: If the two reports reach clearly different conclusions (for example one recommends acceptance and the other rejection), the handling editor invites a third reviewer before deciding.

3. Criteria for Reviewers

Reviewers assess the manuscript on the following criteria:

Originality: The manuscript presents original research or argument that contributes to the field.
Relevance: The manuscript expands or furthers research in language or literary studies.
Structure: The manuscript contains the sections required for its article type: for example introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion and conclusion for a research article; a clearly stated argument developed in titled sections for a critical or theoretical essay.
Engagement with scholarship: The manuscript engages with the relevant primary texts and secondary scholarship; references are cited appropriately in the text, and the reference list is complete and accurate.
Clarity and quality: The manuscript is clear, concise and well written. Reviewers may recommend shortening sections or improving the discussion where necessary.
Language proficiency: The manuscript is written in clear and professional English. Quotations in other languages are translated. Reviewers may recommend professional proofreading if needed.
Additional evidence: Reviewers may identify sections that require further evidence or analysis, or highlight findings that could be expanded.

4. Reviewer Recommendations

Each reviewer gives one of the following recommendations to the handling editor:

Accept and publish as is: The manuscript meets all criteria and requires no further revisions.
Accept and publish with minor revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes before publication.
Accept and publish with major revisions: The manuscript requires significant revisions but may be published after these changes are made.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards and is not suitable for publication.

The handling editor decides on the basis of all the reports; the decision is not a count of recommendations.

5. Communication and Revision

Reviewer comments: Reviewers annotate their comments directly on the manuscript using Microsoft Word markups and submit this version via the online platform.
Author feedback: The author receives the reviewed versions, including all the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, together with the editorial decision.
Revision process: The author revises the manuscript in response to the reviewers’ feedback, tracking all changes made, and resubmits it with a short response to each comment via the online platform.
Final decision: The handling editor checks the revised manuscript, sending it back to the reviewers when major revisions were required, and decides whether to forward it to the production team for publication.

6. Generative AI in Peer Review

Confidentiality: Reviewers must not upload a manuscript, its figures, data or author information, in whole or in part, to generative AI services or other third-party AI software. Doing so breaches the confidentiality of unpublished work.
Human evaluation: Generative AI must not be used to evaluate a manuscript or write a review report. Scholarly evaluation requires the reviewer’s own expert judgement.
Language support: Reviewers may use AI-assisted tools only to improve the language of their own written comments, and say so to the handling editor when they submit the report.
Editors: Editors make every editorial decision themselves. Automated tools may support technical checks (for example iThenticate similarity checks or reference validation), never the decision to accept or reject. See the Generative AI Policy.

7. Transparency and Policies

Peer review statement: All research content published in EJLS is peer-reviewed. Peer review is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers who are experts in the field and are not part of the journal’s editorial staff.
Submissions by editors: A manuscript submitted by the Editor-in-Chief or a Co-Editor-in-Chief is handled by one of the other two; a manuscript by a member of the editorial board or editorial staff is handled by an editor with no conflict of interest. Such manuscripts go through the same double-blind review by two reviewers, and the submitting editor takes no part in the decision.
No guarantee of acceptance: EJLS does not guarantee acceptance or very short review times. The review process is thorough and designed to ensure the publication of high-quality research.
Timeliness: The journal strives to complete the review process in a timely manner; its duration may vary with the complexity of the manuscript and the availability of reviewers.
Dates: Each published article shows its Submitted, Accepted and Published dates.

8. Publication of the Reviewed Paper

Final approval: Once the manuscript is approved by the handling editor, it is forwarded to the production team for publication.
Open access: Published articles are freely available under the CC BY 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International) license, ensuring broad dissemination and accessibility.

European Journal of Language and Literature Studies (EJLS) · ISSN 2411-9598 (Print), ISSN 2411-4103 (Online) · Journal e-mail: [email protected]
Publisher: Revistia Research and Publishing (UK Company No. 13067873), Office 1, Forest House Business Centre, 8 Gainsborough Road, London, E11 1HT, United Kingdom · [email protected] · +44 330 027 1458
Last updated 6 October 2026