Reviewer Guidelines

Peer Review Process

Manuscripts are submitted for anonymous peer review to two members of the Language & Literacy Review Board.

Reviewer Guidelines

Publication Recommendation*:

 1. Publish, largely as is

 2. Accept with changes outlined in review

 3. Revise and resubmit for review

 4. Decline with encouragement to revise or submit to another journal


Reviewer’s Comments:

Questions to consider in your review:

  • Is the content appropriate to the scope and quality standards of Language & Literacy?
  • Is the title appropriate?
  • Does the paper represent an original, engaging, and current contribution to language and literacy research and education?
  • Are the objectives of the manuscript clearly articulated?
  • Is the methodology adequately described and appropriate to the stated objectives?
  • Does the paper cite appropriate literature and provide proper credit to existing work on the topic?
  • Does this manuscript contribute new information and/or insights to the field?
  • Are the major points evident, supported and sufficiently grounded in theory, research, and/or practice?
  • Are its conclusions consistent with the stated objectives and well-supported?
  • Is the manuscript written in a focused and clear way?

*Explanation of categories for publication recommendations

Publication Recommendations:

This category should work in tandem with the comments you make in your review.

 1. Publish, largely as is: Make this recommendation when a manuscript is substantively and stylistically ready to be published and requires only very minor copy-editing.Copy-editing changes refer to changes that are at the grammatical level or at the word/phrase level.This category should not be used if changes to the content of the manuscript are recommended.Please provide a detailed explanation of why the manuscript should be accepted for publication.This information is critical, particularly when there is a difference of opinion among reviewers and the managing editor must make a final decision about publication.

 2. Accept, with changes noted in the review: Make this recommendation when a manuscript clearly warrants publication in L & L, but the author must complete some specific revisions in order for the manuscript to be published. These are generally revisions to the content of the manuscript (e.g., sections to be deleted, material to be added, or minor re-organization). This recommendation should include a specific list of revisions that need to be undertaken before you can endorse publishing the manuscript.The revised manuscript will not go through another review process. The managing editor will decide whether the revisions are adequate.

 3. Revise and resubmit for review:Make this recommendation when a manuscript is not acceptable for publication in L & L in its current form, but you see merit in the author’s work.  This recommendation implies that after an author significantly revises a manuscript, it may be acceptable for publication.  This category indicates that you think an additional cycle of revision and review would allow this manuscript to be considered for publication.  If the revisions are substantive and could not be accomplished within several weeks, then indicate “Decline with encouragement to revise.”   Be sure to include specific comments that will guide the author(s) in revising the work.Where possible, manuscripts that are resubmitted based on this decision will be sent back to at least one of the original reviewers who will be asked to read the revised manuscript and make a recommendation about the publication of the manuscript.  Authors are forewarned that an invitation to resubmit is NOT a guarantee of publication.

 4. Decline: Make this recommendation when a manuscript is clearly not appropriate for L & L, and when even a significantly revised manuscript would not be acceptable for publication.When a decline recommendation is made, it is important to provide a thoughtful explanation outlining why a manuscript is unacceptable in its current form. Please also consider offering constructive suggestions for revising the work so that it would be acceptable for another journal or make suggestions for improving writing style to help the author receive more favourably reviews in the future. Where possible, please suggest more suitable journals for the author’s work. This is particularly helpful for new authors. L & L tries to nurture and encourage as much as possible those who are new to the academic writing process.