Reviewer Guidelines

Seltics Journal: Scope of English Language Teaching, Literature, and Linguistics

1. Introduction

Seltics Journal: Scope of English Language Teaching, Literature, and Linguistics is committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, and publication ethics. Peer review plays an essential role in ensuring that submitted manuscripts meet the journal's scholarly standards and contribute meaningfully to the relevant fields of study.

These guidelines provide reviewers with a framework for evaluating manuscripts submitted to Seltics Journal: Scope of English Language Teaching, Literature, and Linguistics and making constructive, evidence-based recommendations to the editors.

2. Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and professionally.
Assess the manuscript's originality, relevance, methodological rigor, clarity, and academic contribution.
Provide constructive comments that help authors improve their manuscripts.
Identify weaknesses, inconsistencies, unsupported claims, and methodological limitations.
Maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and all information obtained during the review process.
Declare any potential conflicts of interest before undertaking a review.
Complete the review within the deadline agreed upon with the editorial team.
Inform the editor promptly if they are unable to review the manuscript or lack the expertise required.
Avoid using unpublished material from a manuscript for personal research or professional advantage.

3. Scope and Expertise

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts within their areas of academic expertise and in accordance with the journal's stated Focus and Scope.

Depending on the subject of the manuscript, relevant areas may include English language teaching and learning, English language education, linguistics, applied linguistics, literature, translation, language assessment, educational research, and related fields covered by the journal.

Reviewers should inform the editor if substantial parts of a manuscript fall outside their expertise.

4. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to assess the following aspects:

4.1. Title and Abstract

Does the title accurately represent the main focus of the study?
Does the abstract clearly present the research purpose, methods, principal findings, and conclusions?
Are the keywords relevant and appropriate for the manuscript?

4.2. Introduction

Is the research problem clearly identified and adequately contextualized?
Is the research gap supported by relevant literature?
Are the research objectives, questions, or hypotheses clearly stated?
Does the introduction establish the significance of the study?

4.3. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Are the relevant theories and previous studies critically discussed?
Is the literature sufficiently current and appropriate?
Does the manuscript demonstrate a clear relationship between previous research and the present study?
Are sources properly cited and integrated into the argument?

4.4. Research Methodology

Is the research design appropriate for the research objectives?
Are the participants, data sources, instruments, and procedures clearly described?
Are the data collection and analysis procedures appropriate and sufficiently transparent?
Where applicable, are ethical considerations adequately addressed?
Is the methodology sufficiently detailed to support the credibility of the findings?

4.5. Results and Findings

Are the findings presented clearly and systematically?
Do the results address the research questions or objectives?
Are tables, figures, examples, and other supporting materials relevant and adequately explained?
Are the interpretations supported by the evidence presented?

4.6. Discussion

Are the findings critically interpreted rather than merely repeated?
Are the findings compared with relevant theories and previous studies?
Does the discussion explain the significance and implications of the results?
Are alternative interpretations and relevant limitations considered where appropriate?

4.7. Conclusion and Implications

Does the conclusion directly address the research objectives or questions?
Are the conclusions supported by the findings?
Are the theoretical, pedagogical, practical, or research implications clearly explained where relevant?
Are limitations and suggestions for future research appropriately presented?

4.8. References and Citations

Are in-text citations consistent with the reference list?
Are the cited sources relevant, credible, and appropriate for the study?
Are references formatted according to the journal's prescribed style?
Are there any apparent citation inconsistencies, missing references, or unsupported claims?
Are sources acknowledged appropriately to avoid plagiarism and improper attribution?

4.9. Academic Writing and Presentation

Is the manuscript written in clear, coherent, and appropriate academic English?
Is the organization logical and consistent?
Are terminology, grammar, punctuation, and formatting sufficiently accurate?
Does the manuscript comply with the journal's author guidelines?

4.10. Originality, Ethics, and Contribution

Does the manuscript demonstrate an identifiable contribution to knowledge or practice?
Are the claims and interpretations adequately supported?
Are there potential concerns involving plagiarism, redundant publication, data integrity, research ethics, or undisclosed conflicts of interest?
If ethical concerns arise, are they reported confidentially to the editor with supporting information?

Reviewers should distinguish between issues that are essential to the validity of the study and those that can be addressed through editorial or language improvements.

5. Review Procedure

Reviewers should follow these steps:

Initial assessment: Confirm that the manuscript is within their expertise and that no conflict of interest prevents an objective review.
Overall evaluation: Assess the manuscript's scholarly merit, relevance, originality, and methodological soundness.
Detailed assessment: Examine the manuscript using the criteria provided in Section 4.
Constructive feedback: Provide specific comments identifying strengths, weaknesses, and practical ways to improve the manuscript.
Confidential comments: Communicate any sensitive concerns directly to the editor rather than disclosing them in comments intended for the author.
Recommendation: Select an appropriate recommendation based on the evidence and the extent of revision required.

Reviewers should explain the reasons for their assessments. Comments such as "the article is poor" or "the article is not interesting" are insufficient unless accompanied by specific academic justification.

6. Review Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's standards and requires no substantial changes beyond minor editorial adjustments.

Minor Revision: The manuscript is potentially publishable, but limited revisions are needed to improve clarity, presentation, referencing, or other non-substantial aspects.

Major Revision: The manuscript has potential but requires substantial revisions to address significant weaknesses in its argumentation, theoretical grounding, methodology, analysis, interpretation, or presentation.

Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication standards, falls outside its scope, lacks sufficient scholarly contribution, or has fundamental problems that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.

The final editorial decision rests with the editor. A reviewer's recommendation is advisory and does not automatically determine the publication outcome.

7. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, reproduce, or discuss unpublished manuscript content with unauthorized individuals.

Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscripts to publicly accessible artificial intelligence tools or other third-party services that may compromise confidentiality. Any permitted use of digital or AI-assisted tools must be consistent with the journal's policies and must not replace the reviewer's independent academic judgment.

8. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest that could affect the impartiality of their evaluation.

Such conflicts may include close personal or professional relationships with the authors, direct academic competition, financial interests, or other circumstances that could compromise objectivity.

If a significant conflict exists, reviewers should inform the editor and decline the review when appropriate.

9. Research Integrity and Publication Ethics

Reviewers should alert the editor to credible concerns about plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or manipulated data, unethical research practices, inappropriate citation practices, or other potential breaches of publication ethics.

Concerns should be presented objectively and, where possible, supported by specific evidence. Reviewers should not make unsupported allegations or independently investigate suspected misconduct beyond what is necessary to report their concerns to the editor.

10. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and integrity of their evaluations.

AI tools must not be used in ways that expose confidential manuscript content, compromise author privacy, or substitute for the reviewer's own expert assessment. Reviewers must follow the journal's applicable AI policy and disclose AI assistance when required by that policy.

11. Review Timeline

Reviewers are expected to submit their reports within the deadline communicated by the editorial team. If additional time is needed, reviewers should inform the editor as early as possible.

If reviewers cannot complete the review within the agreed period, they should notify the editor promptly so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

12. Structure of the Review Report

To facilitate a consistent and useful evaluation, reviewers are encouraged to organize their reports as follows:

General assessment: A brief overview of the manuscript's contribution, strengths, and major concerns.
Major comments: Issues that substantially affect the validity, interpretation, originality, or contribution of the study.
Minor comments: Specific corrections concerning clarity, terminology, grammar, references, formatting, and other presentation issues.
Confidential comments to the editor: Relevant concerns that should not be included in the comments to the author.
Recommendation: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject, accompanied by a clear justification.

Reviewers should use respectful, professional, and constructive language throughout the report.

13. Final Statement

Seltics Journal: Scope of English Language Teaching, Literature, and Linguistics appreciates the time, expertise, and scholarly judgment contributed by its reviewers. By following these guidelines, reviewers help the journal maintain a transparent, fair, rigorous, and ethically responsible publication process.

All reviewers are expected to uphold the principles of confidentiality, impartiality, academic integrity, and constructive scholarly communication throughout the peer-review process.

Editorial Team

Seltics Journal: Scope of English Language Teaching, Literature, and Linguistics