Reviewer Guidelines
Linguistic Exploration (LE) appreciates the valuable contributions of reviewers in maintaining the academic quality, integrity, and credibility of the journal. Reviewers play an essential role in evaluating submitted manuscripts and providing constructive feedback to help authors improve their research.
The journal expects all reviewers to conduct their evaluations objectively, independently, confidentially, and in a timely manner. By accepting a review assignment, reviewers agree to follow the guidelines outlined below.
1. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
- Evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide fair, constructive, and evidence-based assessments.
- Assess the originality, academic significance, relevance, methodology, and overall quality of the submitted research.
- Provide clear and professional comments that can help authors improve their manuscripts.
- Identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately cited, where applicable.
- Notify the editor of any substantial similarities between the manuscript under review and other published or submitted work of which they are aware.
- Complete the review within the agreed timeframe or inform the editorial office promptly if additional time is required.
Reviewers should focus on the academic content of the manuscript and avoid personal criticism of the authors.
2. Review Criteria
Reviewers are requested to consider the following aspects when evaluating a manuscript:
Originality and Contribution
- Does the manuscript present original research or meaningful scholarly insights?
- Does it make a clear contribution to linguistic studies or related fields?
Relevance and Scope
- Is the manuscript relevant to the Aims and Scope of the journal?
- Is the research topic appropriate for the journal's readership?
Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
- Does the manuscript demonstrate adequate knowledge of relevant literature?
- Are the theoretical framework and research questions clearly established?
- Are relevant and up-to-date references appropriately incorporated?
Research Methodology
- Are the research methods appropriate for addressing the research questions?
- Are the research design, data sources, and analytical procedures adequately explained?
- Are the methods sufficiently rigorous and transparent?
Results and Discussion
- Are the findings clearly presented and adequately supported by evidence?
- Are the interpretations reasonable and consistent with the results?
- Does the discussion appropriately address the research questions and relevant literature?
Presentation and Organization
- Is the manuscript logically structured and clearly written?
- Are the tables, figures, examples, and references appropriately presented?
- Does the manuscript meet the journal's Author Guidelines?
3. Confidentiality
All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers must not:
- Share or distribute manuscripts or any part of their contents without prior authorization from the journal.
- Discuss unpublished research with unauthorized individuals.
- Use unpublished information, data, or ideas obtained through the review process for personal or professional advantage.
- Retain or reproduce manuscript materials beyond what is necessary to complete the review.
The confidentiality obligation remains in effect after the review has been completed.
4. Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
Potential conflicts may include, but are not limited to:
- Current or recent collaborations with any of the authors;
- Employment at the same institution as an author;
- Personal, professional, or financial relationships that could affect impartiality;
- Direct academic or professional competition that may compromise objective evaluation.
If a conflict of interest exists or arises during the review process, reviewers must promptly inform the editor and decline or withdraw from the assignment where appropriate.
5. Review Process and Recommendations
Linguistic Exploration adopts a double-blind peer review process. Reviewers should not attempt to identify the authors of a manuscript or seek information that could compromise the anonymity of the review process.
After completing their assessment, reviewers are requested to submit a detailed review report through the journal's designated submission system.
Reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:
- Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revisions.
- Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited changes that can generally be addressed without another full round of external review.
- Major Revision: Significant improvements are necessary before the manuscript can be considered further. A further round of peer review may be required.
- Reject: The manuscript has substantial academic, methodological, ethical, or scope-related deficiencies that make it unsuitable for publication.
Reviewers should provide clear reasons to support their recommendations. The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor, taking into account the reviewers' comments and the journal's editorial standards.
6. Ethical Considerations
Reviewers should remain alert to potential ethical concerns, including:
- Plagiarism, redundant publication, or substantial overlap with previously published work;
- Fabrication, falsification, or questionable presentation of research data;
- Inappropriate citation practices or suspected citation manipulation;
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
- Potential ethical concerns involving research participants or research data.
Any suspected ethical or publication integrity concerns should be reported confidentially to the editor, with relevant explanations or supporting evidence where available. Reviewers should not independently investigate or contact the authors regarding suspected misconduct.
7. Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools
Reviewers must not upload or disclose unpublished manuscripts, confidential review materials, or identifiable author information to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence tools or other third-party services without the journal's authorization.
Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, confidentiality, and integrity of their review reports. AI-generated assessments must not replace independent scholarly judgment.
8. Timeliness of Reviews
The journal generally aims to complete the initial peer review process within approximately 2–4 weeks.
Reviewers are normally requested to submit their reports within the deadline specified in the review invitation. If they are unable to complete the review on time, they should notify the editorial office as early as possible.
If a reviewer is unable to undertake the review, they are encouraged to decline promptly and, where possible, suggest alternative qualified reviewers.
9. Review Report and Constructive Feedback
A good review report should be clear, specific, professional, and constructive.
Reviewers are encouraged to:
- Identify the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses;
- Explain major concerns with sufficient detail;
- Provide specific suggestions for improving the research and presentation;
- Distinguish essential revisions from optional recommendations;
- Ensure that comments are relevant to the manuscript's academic quality and contribution.
Reviewers should avoid inappropriate language, unsupported allegations, unnecessary requests for self-citation, or comments unrelated to the scholarly content.
The journal sincerely appreciates the time and expertise contributed by reviewers in supporting the development of the journal.