Peer-Review Process

Type of Review

JICL operates a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors, throughout the review process.

Authors must anonymize their manuscripts before submission by removing author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, funding details, and any self-identifying references, and by clearing identifying information from the file properties. Author details must be provided only in a separate title page or in the submission metadata. Manuscripts that are not properly anonymized may be returned to the authors before being sent for review.

Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors. A reviewer who believes they have recognized the author of a manuscript must inform the editor immediately and, where appropriate, decline the assignment.

Number and Selection of Reviewers

Every manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is evaluated by at least two (2) independent reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise and relevant knowledge of the manuscript’s subject area.

Reviewers must be sufficiently independent of the authors and the submitted work to provide an impartial assessment. Reviewers should not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors or have recent collaborations with them. Any actual or potential conflict of interest must be disclosed to the editor, and reviewers who cannot provide an objective assessment must decline the assignment.

If the two reviewers’ recommendations differ significantly, the editor may invite a third reviewer or consult a member of the editorial board before making a decision. Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, or editorial board members are handled by an editor who is not affiliated with the author’s institution, and the author takes no part in the decision.

Confidentiality of the Review Process

Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal, professional, or financial advantage. Editors are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality and integrity of the editorial process.

Review Stages and Editorial Decisions

The review process consists of the following stages:

Initial editorial screening, covering scope, originality and similarity check, anonymization, and compliance with the author guidelines.
Double-blind peer review by at least two reviewers.
Consideration of reviewers’ reports by the editor.
Revision, with at least one round (see below).
Final editorial decision.

Reviewers provide recommendations and constructive comments to assist the editor and authors. The editor evaluates the reviewers’ recommendations and the manuscript’s scholarly merit before making a decision. The Editor-in-Chief has final authority over acceptance or rejection, in accordance with the journal’s editorial policies.

Reviewer Recommendation Categories

Each reviewer must select one of the following recommendations in the review form:

Accept: the manuscript is suitable for publication without further changes.
Minor Revisions: the manuscript is sound but requires limited changes, such as clarification, language, or referencing. The revised version is checked by the editor, or by the reviewer where requested.
Major Revisions: the manuscript has substantial weaknesses, such as in argument, methodology, analysis, or literature, that must be resolved. The revised version is returned to the reviewers for re-evaluation.
Reject: the manuscript does not meet the journal’s scholarly standards, scope, or ethical requirements and is not suitable for publication in JICL.

Revision Rounds

Every manuscript that is not rejected must go through at least one (1) revision round before it can be accepted for publication. Additional rounds are required whenever the reviewers request them or the editor judges that the concerns have not been adequately addressed.

In each revision round, authors must submit the revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response letter that explains how each reviewer comment has been addressed or why a comment was not followed. Changes in the manuscript must be clearly marked. A recommendation to accept does not automatically guarantee publication, as a manuscript may still require further revision or assessment before a final decision is made.

Exceptions to the Standard Review Process

JICL applies this peer-review process to all manuscripts submitted for scholarly publication. If any category of content is subject to a different review procedure, the applicable procedure will be clearly disclosed. Editorial announcements, corrections, retractions, and other non-research content may be handled according to their specific editorial requirements.

Review Timeline

The initial review period for each manuscript is two (2) weeks from the date the reviewer accepts the review assignment. If additional time is required, the review period may be extended up to three (3) times, with each extension lasting two (2) weeks. The maximum review period is therefore eight (8) weeks. Any extension must be communicated to the editorial office, and the editor is responsible for monitoring the process so that manuscripts are handled in a timely manner.

The review timeline covers only the period allocated for peer review. It does not include the time required for author revisions, additional review rounds, or other editorial processes.

Relationship with Other Editorial Policies

This policy should be read together with JICL’s Author Guidelines, Publication Ethics, Conflict of Interest Policy, and Allegations of Research Misconduct policy.