Dear Contributing Authors and Peer Reviewers,
At the Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching (ISELT), peer review plays a vital role in upholding the academic integrity and quality of our publications. This concise document summarizes the core ethical guidelines for reviewers, grounded in international standards and informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, Version 2, September 2017)*. We extend our heartfelt thanks to our contributing peer reviewers for their invaluable role in fostering high-quality and ethical research at ISELT. As a kind request, we encourage reviewers to carefully consider the following guidelines to ensure transparency, fairness, accountability, and ethical rigor throughout the review.
For full details, please refer to the comprehensive version of ISELT’s Ethical Guidelines, available HERE.
Sincerely,
ISELT’s Editorial Office
Guidelines and Ethical Responsibilities for ISELT’s Peer Reviewers (The Concise Version)
A. Double-Anonymous Model
Both reviewer and author identities are concealed to ensure unbiased evaluation.
B. Confidentiality
All reviews remain confidential and cannot be shared or used for personal gain.
C. Competing Interests
Declare any personal, financial, or intellectual conflicts of interest before accepting reviews to avoid bias or ethical concerns.
D. Timeliness
Respond promptly to invitations, adhere to deadlines, and notify editors of delays or inability to complete reviews.
E. Ethics Violations
Report suspected ethical violations to the editor without contacting authors directly or conducting independent investigations.
F. Constructive Feedback
Provide objective, professional feedback aimed at improving the quality and scientific validity of the manuscript.
G. Editorial Mediation
Editors facilitate communication and act as intermediaries between reviewers and authors to ensure professionalism.
H. Ownership
Reviews belong to the journal and are conducted via the journal’s facilitated process.
I. Preparing a Report
Follow ISELT’s instructions for completing evaluation forms and rubrics. Provide constructive feedback and avoid defamatory or hostile comments (e.g., COPE Case 08-13).
J. Appropriate Feedback
Offer a balanced assessment of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses. Align recommendations with comments and specify which sections were reviewed.
K. Language and Style
Suggest necessary changes for clarity while respecting the author’s original style. Support non-native English authors with constructive suggestions when required.
L. Suggestions for Improvement
Focus on evaluating the quality and rigor of the work. Recommend additional analyses only when necessary to support arguments. Avoid asking for excessive or unwarranted expansions.
M. Accountability
Conduct independent reviews without involving others without permission. Avoid unjustified criticisms or excessive citation requests for personal benefit.
N. Post-Review Considerations
Evaluate revised submissions promptly, considering the authors’ responses to prior feedback. Notify editors if new information changes your position (COPE Case 13-15).
O. Seek Permission When Involving Others
Obtain approval from editors when involving students or junior researchers in peer reviews to maintain transparency and ethical compliance.
P. Acknowledge Contributions
Transparently credit the contributions of students or junior researchers assisting with reviews.
* COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9