Peer Review Policy

Lingua: Jurnal Ilmiah applies a double-blind peer-review process to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, objectively, and independently. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review is conducted to assess the quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts. The review process also provides authors with constructive feedback to improve their manuscripts.

Peer review does not guarantee publication. The final publication decision is made by the editorial team based on the reviewers' recommendations, the quality of the manuscript, and the journal's scope and editorial standards.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team. The screening may include assessment of:

  • alignment with the journal's scope and aims;

  • compliance with the journal's submission guidelines;

  • originality and plagiarism concerns;

  • basic academic and methodological quality;

  • completeness of the manuscript;

  • ethical considerations; and

  • potential conflicts of interest.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements or are clearly outside the journal's scope may be rejected before peer review.

3. Selection of Reviewers

The editor selects reviewers who have appropriate expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript. Whenever possible, reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Reviewers should not be selected solely because of their institutional affiliation, personal relationship with the authors, or other factors unrelated to scholarly expertise.

4. Double-Blind Review

Lingua: Jurnal Ilmiah uses a double-blind review system in which:

  • reviewers do not know the identity of the authors; and

  • authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

Authors should therefore ensure that their manuscripts do not unnecessarily reveal their identity or institutional affiliation in the main manuscript file.

The journal recognizes that complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly in highly specialized research fields or when manuscripts are publicly available as preprints.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  1. evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively;

  2. assess the manuscript based on scholarly quality rather than the authors' identity, affiliation, nationality, gender, or other irrelevant characteristics;

  3. provide clear and evidence-based comments that can assist authors in improving their manuscripts;

  4. identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately cited, where applicable;

  5. notify the editor of any substantial similarity or potential plagiarism they identify;

  6. disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting a review;

  7. maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and review process; and

  8. complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or promptly inform the editor if an extension is needed.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal advantage, research, or any other purpose without permission.

6. Reviewer Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted to Lingua: Jurnal Ilmiah are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, or discuss the manuscript or its contents with unauthorized individuals.

Reviewer reports and correspondence related to the review process should also be treated as confidential.

7. Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline an invitation when they have a conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality. Potential conflicts may include:

  • close personal or professional relationships with the authors;

  • recent collaboration with one or more authors;

  • direct academic competition;

  • financial interests;

  • institutional conflicts; or

  • other circumstances that may reasonably affect the reviewer's objectivity.

If a potential conflict becomes apparent after accepting the review, the reviewer should inform the editor immediately.

8. Review Criteria

Reviewers may be asked to consider the following aspects:

  • relevance to the journal's scope;

  • originality and significance of the research;

  • clarity of the research problem and objectives;

  • adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework;

  • appropriateness of the methodology;

  • quality and adequacy of data analysis;

  • coherence of the discussion;

  • validity of conclusions;

  • quality and relevance of references;

  • clarity of organization and academic language; and

  • ethical compliance where applicable.

9. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' reports and the editor's assessment, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

  • Accept — the manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minor editorial changes;

  • Minor Revision — limited revisions are required before publication can be considered;

  • Major Revision — substantial revisions are required and the revised manuscript may be subject to further review; or

  • Reject — the manuscript does not meet the journal's scholarly, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements.

The editor may request additional review when reviewers provide substantially different recommendations or when further expertise is required.

10. Reviewer Recognition

The journal may acknowledge reviewers for their scholarly contribution while maintaining the confidentiality of individual review assignments. Reviewer identities will not be disclosed to authors unless the reviewer has explicitly agreed to such disclosure or the journal adopts a different review model for a particular publication process.

11. Misconduct in Peer Review

Any attempt to manipulate the peer-review process, including submitting fabricated reviewer identities, interfering with reviewer reports, impersonating reviewers, or attempting to influence reviewers improperly, may be treated as publication misconduct.

The journal may investigate suspected peer-review manipulation and take appropriate action, including rejection or retraction where necessary.