PEER REVIEW PROCESS

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Wastu Adabia: Journal of Language and Literature

All manuscripts submitted to Wastu Adabia: Journal of Language and Literature undergo a rigorous peer-review process to ensure academic quality and research integrity. The journal applies a double-blind peer review system, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation. Manuscripts are assessed by experts in the fields of language, literature, and related humanities disciplines.

1. Initial Evaluation

Upon submission through the OJS platform, the editorial board conducts an initial screening to ensure that the manuscript:

  • aligns with the focus and scope of Wastu Adabia,

  • adheres to the author guidelines and formatting requirements,

  • meets the plagiarism threshold (maximum 25% similarity).

Manuscripts exceeding the similarity limit or failing to meet basic formatting guidelines will be returned to the authors for correction or may be rejected. Manuscripts that pass this stage proceed to peer review.

2. Assignment of Reviewers

The editorial board appoints two to five independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s topic. The journal ensures a double-blind process:

  • reviewers do not know the authors’ identities,

  • authors do not know the reviewers’ identities.

Authors must ensure that their names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and any identifying information are placed in a separate Title Page file.

Reviewer selection is based on:

  • scientific expertise,

  • absence of conflict of interest,

  • affiliation different from the authors’ institution.

The journal strives to assign reviewers within two weeks.

3. Review Process

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to:

  • scientific rigor and quality,

  • originality,

  • validity of methods and arguments,

  • relevance to language, literature, and humanities studies.

Reviewers are given two weeks to complete the evaluation and provide constructive comments, along with a recommendation:

  • accept,

  • revise (minor or major),

  • reject.

4. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on:

  • reviewers’ comments and recommendations,

  • the manuscript’s compliance with ethical and academic standards.

If reviewers’ comments differ significantly, an additional reviewer may be invited. Editorial decisions (acceptance, rejection, major revision, or minor revision) are communicated to the authors via the OJS system, with all reviewer comments remaining anonymous.

Estimated timelines:

  • 1 month from submission to first decision,

  • 4–12 weeks from acceptance to publication.

5. Revision Process

If revisions are requested, authors must:

  • submit a revised manuscript with highlighted changes,

  • include a detailed rebuttal letter responding to reviewers’ comments.

Revision deadlines:

  • 2 weeks for minor revisions,

  • 4 weeks for major revisions.

Major revisions are typically returned to the same reviewers for re-evaluation, while minor revisions may be assessed directly by the editorial team.

6. Publication

Once accepted, the manuscript undergoes:

  • copyediting,

  • layout and typesetting,

  • proofreading,

  • final publication in the designated issue.

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement for the Peer Review Process

Wastu Adabia: Journal of Language and Literature upholds the highest ethical standards and seeks to prevent publication malpractice throughout the peer review process. The journal adheres to the following principles:

1. Confidentiality

Editors, reviewers, and staff must maintain the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts and the review process.

2. Objectivity and Impartiality

Manuscripts are evaluated objectively based on academic merit, without bias or prejudice. Reviewers must provide fair and constructive feedback.

3. Timeliness

Reviewers and editors are expected to complete their evaluations within reasonable timelines. Authors will be informed promptly about the progress and status of their submissions.

4. Transparency and Accountability

Reviewers must provide clear, well-reasoned, and constructive comments. Editors are responsible for making fair and informed decisions.

5. Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest. When conflicts arise, the journal will take appropriate steps to ensure an unbiased review process.

6. Plagiarism and Research Misconduct

Any suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or research misconduct must be reported and addressed according to the journal’s ethical guidelines.

7. Reviewer Recognition

Wastu Adabia acknowledges the essential contribution of peer reviewers and values their expertise and commitment to enhancing the quality of published research.