Diksi uses a double-anonymous peer review process for original research articles and review articles. The identities of the authors and the reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the process. Peer review aims to ensure that every published article is original, rigorous, ethically sound, and valuable to language, literature, and language teaching scholarship. It also aims to help authors improve their work through constructive and fair feedback. The process follows COPE’s Core Practices and Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (see References).

1. Principles

• Anonymity: authors do not know who reviewed their work, and reviewers do not know who wrote it. Manuscripts must be anonymised by the authors, as described in the Author Guidelines.
• Independence: editorial decisions are based only on the scholarly merit of the work and its fit with the journal’s scope. Decisions are not influenced by the authors’ nationality, institution, gender, religion, ethnicity, political views, or seniority.
• Confidentiality: manuscripts and reviews are confidential documents and may not be shared, cited, or used before publication.
• Constructiveness: reviews should be specific, respectful, evidence-based, and aimed at improving the manuscript.
• Accountability: the editors make the final decision and remain responsible for the process. Reviewers advise; they do not decide.

2. Step-by-Step Review Process

Step 1. Submission and acknowledgement

• The author submits the anonymised manuscript, the title page, and any supplementary files through the OJS system.
• The system sends an automatic acknowledgement. Each manuscript receives a submission ID.

Step 2. Initial editorial screening (within 7 days)

The Editor-in-Chief or a section editor checks:

• whether the manuscript fits the journal’s scope (languages, literature, and their teaching);
• whether it uses the correct template and meets the formal requirements (length, structure, APA 7th edition referencing, references, and end-matter statements);
• whether it is properly anonymised;
• the level of similarity (Turnitin/iThenticate) and signs of misconduct (see the Research Misconduct policy);
• the basic quality of language, argument, and method.

Possible outcomes of the screening:

• Sent to review.
• Returned to author for technical corrections (to be resubmitted within 7 days).
• Desk rejection (out of scope, insufficient quality, or ethical problems), with a short explanation.

Step 3. Assignment of a handling editor

• The Editor-in-Chief assigns a section editor with relevant expertise to manage the manuscript.
• Editors with a conflict of interest (for example, from the same institution as an author, a recent co-author, or a supervisor) do not handle the manuscript.

Step 4. Reviewer selection and invitation

• The handling editor invites at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the topic or method. Reviewers must:
  • have expertise in the topic or method of the manuscript (a doctorate is not required);
  • have at least one publication as an author in a journal indexed in Scopus or Web of Science, preferably in a related field;
  • be verifiable through an institutional email address and ORCID iD.
• Where possible, at least one reviewer is from outside the journal’s home institution, and reviewers come from different institutions.
• Authors may suggest or oppose particular reviewers in the comments to the editor. Suggested reviewers are checked independently and are not necessarily invited.
• Invited reviewers respond within 7 days. If a reviewer declines or does not respond, the editor invites another.

Step 5. Review (within 4 weeks of the first invitation)

• Reviewers have 21 days to complete the review. Reminders are sent automatically, and extensions of up to 5 days may be agreed with the editor. If a review is still overdue, the editor replaces the reviewer.
• Reviewers use the journal’s review form and evaluate the manuscript against the criteria in Section 3. They give comments to the authors and confidential comments to the editor.
• Reviewers may annotate the manuscript file. They must remove any identifying information from the annotated file (File > Info > Inspect Document) before uploading it.
• Each reviewer recommends one of the decisions in Section 4.

Step 6. Editorial decision

• Within 7 days of receiving the reviews, the handling editor considers all reviews, the reviewers’ recommendations, and their own reading of the manuscript, and then makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.
• If the reviews conflict sharply, the editor may invite a third reviewer or ask a member of the editorial board for advice.
• The decision is sent to the author with all reviewer comments, anonymised, and an editor’s summary of the main points to address.

Step 7. Revision

• Minor revisions: to be resubmitted within 1 week. Major revisions: to be resubmitted within 3 weeks. One extension of up to 1 week may be requested before the deadline.
• Authors upload:
  • the revised anonymised manuscript, with changes highlighted or tracked;
  • a response to reviewers table that answers every comment point by point and shows where the change was made (page/line), or explains respectfully why a change was not made.
• Revisions not submitted within the deadline (or an agreed extension) may be treated as new submissions.

Step 8. Re-review and final decision

• After minor revisions, the editor checks the revision within 1 week. After major revisions, the manuscript returns to the original reviewers, who have 10 days to re-review it.
• Revision normally takes two rounds, but further rounds may be held if the revised manuscript shows clear progress yet still needs improvement. Each further round follows the same deadlines (author revision of 1–3 weeks; re-review within 10 days) and uses the reserve weeks in the timeline. If the manuscript does not make adequate progress between rounds, it is declined. In exceptional cases where the extra rounds go beyond 4 months, the editor informs the authors of the revised schedule.
• The final decision to accept or reject is made by the Editor-in-Chief no later than 4 months after submission.

Step 9. Post-acceptance

• The accepted manuscript proceeds to copyediting, proofreading by the authors, layout, and online publication with a DOI.
• Authors may be asked to provide the de-anonymised final version, high-resolution figures, and signed forms.

Timeline summary (maximum 4 months)

Manuscripts that need only minor revisions after the first round usually receive a final decision by week 8. Copyediting, proofreading, and publication follow acceptance and are not included in the 4 months.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess:

1. Relevance and contribution: the importance of the topic for languages, literature, and their teaching; the originality and novelty of the contribution.
2. Introduction and theoretical framework: whether the problem, research gap, and objective are clear, and whether the theoretical or conceptual framework is appropriate and actually used in the analysis.
3. Literature: whether the review of the literature is current, relevant, and critical, drawing on recent international and regional scholarship.
4. Method:
   • the appropriateness and transparency of the design, data, sampling, instruments, and analysis;
   • validity, reliability, or trustworthiness of the data and analysis;
   • ethical procedures;
   • the transparency of the data sources, corpus, or participants, and of the analysis (e.g., coding, triangulation, statistical tests); for systematic reviews, compliance with PRISMA 2020.
5. Results: whether the findings are clearly presented and adequately supported by data, with appropriate tables and figures.
6. Discussion: whether the findings are interpreted in light of relevant linguistic, literary, or pedagogical theories and compared with prior studies, and whether the novelty, implications, and limitations are made clear.
7. Conclusion: whether the conclusions follow from the evidence and answer the research question(s).
8. Presentation: the clarity of the argument and the quality of the academic English; the structure; APA 7th edition referencing; and compliance with the template.
9. Ethics: any concerns about plagiarism, data integrity, consent, conflicts of interest, or undisclosed use of AI.

4. Decision Categories

• Accept: the manuscript can be published as it is, or with only editorial changes.
• Minor revisions: limited changes are needed; the manuscript is not normally sent for full re-review.
• Major revisions: substantial changes are needed, and the revised manuscript will be reviewed again.
• Resubmit for review: the work has potential but needs fundamental reworking. The author may submit a substantially revised version as a new submission, which will go through the full review process again.
• Decline: the manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.

5. Data, Excerpts, and Instruments

• For qualitative and text-based studies, reviewers check that the findings are supported by data excerpts with clear source codes (e.g., [N1/p.23] or [Inf-3]) and that interpretations are consistent with the evidence.
• For studies using tests, questionnaires, or teaching materials, reviewers may ask to see the instruments or data as supplementary material.

6. Responsibilities of Reviewers

• Accept an invitation only if you have the relevant expertise and can meet the deadline.
• Declare any conflict of interest and decline the invitation if one exists. Conflicts include recognising the authors, recent collaboration, being at the same institution, or a competing interest.
• Keep the manuscript confidential. Do not share it, use its content, or contact the authors.
• Do not upload the manuscript or any part of it to generative AI tools, as this breaches confidentiality. Reviewers are fully responsible for the content of their reviews.
• Write objective, specific, and courteous comments. Avoid personal remarks. Do not ask authors to cite your own work unless there is a genuine scholarly reason.
• Do not try to identify the authors. If you become aware of their identity, inform the editor.
• Report any suspected plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate publication, or ethical concern to the editor confidentially.

7. Responsibilities of Editors

• Ensure a fair, timely, and confidential process, and protect the anonymity of authors and reviewers.
• Choose qualified reviewers without conflicts of interest, and monitor the quality of reviews. Remove or edit inappropriate comments before sending reviews to authors.
• Base decisions on the evidence and the reviews, and explain them clearly to authors.
• Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members are handled by another editor, and the editor-author is excluded from all information about the review.

8. Appeals and Complaints

1. Authors who believe that a decision was based on a factual error, a misunderstanding, or a procedural irregularity may submit an appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision.
2. The appeal must explain the grounds in detail and respond to the reviewers’ comments. Disagreement with the decision alone is not grounds for appeal.
3. The appeal is considered by an editor not involved in the original decision. This editor may consult the reviewers or seek a new independent opinion.
4. The outcome is communicated within about 30 days. The decision on appeal is final. While an appeal is under consideration, the manuscript should not be submitted elsewhere.

9. Reviewer Recognition

• Every reviewer who completes a review receives a certificate of reviewing from the journal. The certificate gives the reviewer’s name, the review period, and the number of manuscripts reviewed, without disclosing manuscript details.
• The names and affiliations of reviewers are listed on the journal website on the Reviewers page.

Sources

• Committee on Publication Ethics. (2017). Core practices. https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
• Committee on Publication Ethics. (2017). Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (Version 2). https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9
• Committee on Publication Ethics. (n.d.). Flowcharts [Including handling of suspected reviewer misconduct and editor conflicts of interest]. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts
• Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Halffman, W. (2018). The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 3, Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2024). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals (Section II.E: Peer review). https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
• Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T., & Adeli, K. (2014). Peer review in scientific publications: Benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. EJIFCC, 25(3), 227–243.
• Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
• Tennant, J. P., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2020). The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 5, Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1