Users can access the journal's website at: https://iselt.journals.umz.ac.ir
The journal title is the Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching. The journal is abbreviated as Interdiscip Stud Engl Lang Teach. The acronym is ISELT.
3.1. Peer Review Policy
According to COPE's Code of Conduct and Best Practices ISELT is obligated to use a double-blind peer review method.
3.2. Peer Review Process
Editorial evaluation and peer review are used to decide whether or not to publish a paper. All papers are initially evaluated internally by an editorial committee made up of two or more editorial board members, mostly based on the Editor-in-Chief’s selection and decision. The main goal is to decide whether to quickly reject the work or send it out for external review. In order to prevent delays for authors who might want to seek publication elsewhere, papers whose topics are not related to the journal’s objective and scope, or which do not comply with fundamental journal standards and regulations, will be rejected at this stage. To help the editors decide whether or not to send a work out for review, a paper will occasionally be returned to the author with suggestions for improvements. Within 1–2 weeks of submission, authors can anticipate a decision from this step of the review process.
Manuscripts proceeding to the review process are assessed by members of an international expert panel. All such papers will undergo a double-blind peer review by two or more reviewers, under the supervision of the journal section editor and the Editor-in-Chief. We take every reasonable step to ensure the author’s identity is concealed during the review process, but it is up to authors to ensure that details of prior publications, etc., do not reveal their identity. Authors who reveal their identity in the manuscript will be deemed to have declined anonymity, and the review will be single-blind (i.e., authors do not know the reviewers’ identities).
We aim to complete the review process within 4–8 weeks of the decision to review, although occasionally delays do happen, and authors should allow at least 8 weeks from submission before contacting the journal. The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to make the final decision regarding acceptance.
3.3. Role of Reviewers
Reviewers are the primary members who contribute to the journal’s ability to conduct a double-blind peer review procedure. It is required that double-blind referees never reveal their identities. If a reviewer believes that an article is technically unqualified, that they are unable to complete a timely review, or that the piece presents a conflict of interest, they should decline to review it immediately.
All submissions will be kept confidential, and any outside counsel received may be subject to editorial approval. No reviewer should ever refer an article submitted to them for review to another reviewer for their own benefit; instead, it should be immediately refused. Reviewers, who form the foundation of the entire quality assurance process, should ensure that the articles published are of high caliber and originality. If a reviewer discovers that the article sent to them for review is, to their knowledge, being considered for any other publication, they may notify the editor.
There are no strict rules for analyzing an article; it can be done on a case-by-case basis, depending on the value, caliber, and originality of the submitted article. Generally, the following aspects might be examined during a review: the article’s format and its adherence to the author’s guidelines, the article’s goals, the use of transitions in the writing, the structure including an introduction followed by a conclusion, any recommendations, and references offered to support the information.
Attention to issues such as spelling, punctuation, grammar, plagiarism, and the article’s overall suitability is crucial for reviewers’ comments during the peer review process, which determines whether a submission is accepted or rejected. Reviewers are encouraged to meticulously evaluate the articles assigned to them and deliver candid feedback devoid of any conflicts of interest or bias. Ultimately, the journal’s Editor-in-Chief will supervise the process and make the final determination regarding the acceptance of the submission.
3.4. Instructions for Peer Reviewers
All submissions undergo a double-blind review process. Peer review is, in our view, essential for maintaining the quality and objectivity of academic and scientific research.
As a reviewer, you will provide feedback to the editors (Section Editor and Editor-in-Chief), who, with the help of an editorial committee for all research articles and most analysis articles, will make the final decision. We will inform you of the outcome. Even if we decide not to publish an article, we still aim to pass along any constructive criticism that may help the author improve their work.
Manuscripts that have not been published are confidential documents. Please refrain from discussing the article you are reviewing, even with colleagues. When invited to peer review, please complete the review form. We encourage you to respond to every peer review request you receive. If you feel that the manuscript is outside your area of expertise or you are unable to dedicate sufficient time to the review, please inform the editorial office promptly so they can assign a different reviewer. At this point, you may suggest a well-qualified colleague as a potential reviewer. Please remember that an author cannot receive a timely response if their manuscript is delayed due to unresponsive reviewers.
Take your time to read the Author’s Instructions and the Aims and Scope. Consider the manuscript’s suitability for the journal to which it has been submitted. You can find the journal’s goals and domain in the “Journal Information” menu and pages.
Every review must be constructive and helpful, and we urge reviewers to be honest but courteous in their critique. In the broadest sense, peer reviewers should offer an objective and critical evaluation of the paper. Reviewers are expected to guide the Editor-in-Chief in the manuscript selection process. Your detailed responses to the journal’s questions on the review form should be included in your report. If you believe the paper needs revisions before it can be considered acceptable, kindly offer your suggestions. Conversely, if you think the paper is unsuitable and has little potential for improvement, you should recommend rejection.
We also respectfully request that you:
Your thoughtful and thorough assessment is greatly appreciated.
3.5. Confidentiality and Privacy
We kindly emphasize that all manuscripts must be evaluated with strict confidentiality, always prioritizing the authors’ interests. When authors submit their articles for review, they entrust editors with the outcomes of their scientific research and creative endeavors, which may significantly influence their reputations and careers. Revealing confidential information during the review process could potentially infringe upon the authors’ rights. Editors also have a responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of reviewers. While it may be necessary to disclose information in cases of suspected dishonesty or fraud, confidentiality must otherwise be meticulously upheld. Editors are kindly reminded to refrain from sharing any details about submitted papers (including their receipt, content, review status, reviewer feedback, and final decisions) with anyone other than the authors and reviewers, including in legal contexts.
Editors are encouraged to clearly inform reviewers that submitted papers are privileged communications and constitute the authors’ intellectual property. Reviewers and editorial staff are expected to respect the authors’ rights by refraining from publicly discussing their work or utilizing their ideas prior to publication. Without explicit consent from the editor, reviewers should not retain copies of the manuscript for personal files or share them with others. Upon completing their evaluations, reviewers are requested to return or securely destroy any copies of the submitted articles. Similarly, editors are advised not to keep copies of rejected manuscripts. Additionally, reviewer comments should only be published or disclosed with the permission of the reviewer, author, and editor.
3.6. Guidelines and Flowcharts of COPE
ISELT is committed to following and implementing the guidelines and flowcharts set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics in its reviewing and publishing processes. For further details, we invite you to visit: https://publicationethics.org.
3.7. Mismatch of Interests in Reviewing Procedure
Despite the use of a double-blind peer review process, it’s important to acknowledge that the research community can be quite interconnected. Reviewers may recognize an author based on their writing style or previous interactions. While it is possible to provide an impartial assessment of a paper authored by a friend or a competitor, it is crucial to disclose any significant conflicts of interest to the editor. If such conflicts might lead to a pronounced positive or negative bias, it is prudent to decline the review request. Focus on evaluating the merit of the article itself, rather than on the individuals involved. This approach is more likely to be appreciated by the author, potentially leading to improved work in the future.
Editors will also appreciate transparency regarding any conflicts of interest, even if it necessitates finding an alternative reviewer.
The Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching (ISELT) is owned, managed & published by the University of Mazandaran, Iran.
Information regarding the Journal’s Governing Body, including their affiliations and contact details, can be accessed here.
Details about the Journal’s Editorial Board, including their affiliations and contact information, are available under the “Editorial Board” section of the journal’s webpage menu.
ISELT is committed to promoting intercultural exchange of information by providing immediate open access to its content, thereby making research freely available to the public. Each article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and source.
While authors retain copyright, they grant the publisher exclusive rights to their articles.
Authors are entitled to the following:
* This includes the prerogative to establish and approve commercial applications.
** Personal Use Rights:
The following constitute examples of scholarly, non-commercial uses permitted for authors’ articles:
The corresponding author typically ensures that all administrative requirements of the journal, including ethics committee approval, providing authorship details, gathering conflict of interest statements, and submitting clinical trial registration documentation, are completed accurately. The corresponding author assumes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication processes. This includes promptly responding to editorial queries throughout the peer review and submission stages. Moreover, following publication, the corresponding author must assist the journal with any requests or inquiries related to the article.
Following official acceptance of an article, the Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching does not permit the addition of new authors or changes to the first or corresponding author. In cases where an author wishes to have their name removed from the byline, they must submit a letter signed by themselves and all co-authors formally stating their desire to be withdrawn from authorship. Similarly, any modification to the order of names listed in the byline requires the submission of a letter signed by all authors, confirming their collective agreement with the proposed change.
The corresponding author’s role is central to ensuring compliance with journal guidelines and facilitating communication during all stages of the manuscript’s lifecycle, including submission, peer review, publication, and post-publication processes.
8.1. Duplicate Publication and Originality
Manuscripts submitted to the journal must be original works that have not been published elsewhere. This requirement also applies during the review process, meaning authors must ensure that the manuscript is not simultaneously submitted for consideration to other publications while under review. Furthermore, all authors are required to resolve any copyright-related issues prior to citing figures or tables from other sources, including other journals.
The University of Mazandaran fully supports the publishing costs of the journal. As a result, there are no Article Processing Charges (APCs) or any other publication fees required from authors. This journal does not impose any APCs or publication-related charges
ISELT is committed to adhering to all publisher rules and conduct guidelines. The details of the codes, terms, and regulations governing its publication ethics are outlined as follows:
The Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching is a non-profit, libre open access, peer-reviewed journal. It is owned, managed, and published by the University of Mazandaran, Iran. The journal is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics, guided by the COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal’s publication ethics code is available for reference [here].
10.1. COPE’s Guidelines & Flowcharts
The Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching is committed to adhering to and implementing the guidelines and flowcharts of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) throughout its peer review and publishing processes, as well as in addressing ethical issues.
10.2. COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices for Editors
10.2.1. Editors' Responsibilities to the Journal
Chief Editors are accountable for everything published in the journal. This means the editors:
10.2.1.1. Strive to meet the needs of readers and authors.
10.2.1.2. Strive to constantly improve the journal.
10.2.1.3. Have processes in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish.
10.2.1.4. Champion freedom of expression.
10.2.1.5. Maintain the integrity of the academic record.
10.2.1.6. Preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards.
10.2.1.7. Are always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.
Best Practices for Editors (regarding the journal) would include:
10.2.2. Editors’ Responsibilities to Readers
Readers should be informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.
Best Practice for Editors (regarding the readers) would include:
10.2.3. Editors’ Relations with Authors
10.2.3.1. Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, as well as the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.
10.2.3.2. Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
10.2.3.3. New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.
10.2.3.4. A description of peer review processes should be published, and editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.
10.2.3.5. Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions.
10.2.3.6. Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer to or link to this code.
10.2.3.7. Editors should provide guidance about criteria for authorship and/or who should be listed as a contributor, following the standards within the relevant field.
Best Practices for Editors (regarding the authors) would include:
10.2.4. Editors’ Relations with Editorial Board Members
Editors should provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.
Best Practice for Editors (regarding the editorial board members) would include:
10.2.5. Editors’ Relations with Reviewers
10.2.5.1. Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them, including the need to handle submitted material in confidence. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer to or link to this code.
10.2.5.2. Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
10.2.5.3. Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected unless they use an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.
Best Practices for Editors (regarding the reviewers) would include:
10.2.6. Editors’ Relations with Publisher
10.2.6.1. The relationship of editors to the Publisher and the owner is based firmly on the principle of editorial independence.
10.2.6.2. Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without interference from the Publisher.
10.2.6.3. Editors should have a written contract(s) setting out their relationship with the Publisher.
10.2.6.4. The terms of this contract are in line with the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.
Best Practices for Editors (regarding the publisher) would include:
10.2.7. Editors’ Responsibilities to Editorial and Peer Review Processes
10.2.7.1. Editors should strive to ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased, and timely.
10.2.7.2. Editors should have systems in place to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.
Best Practices for Editors (regarding editorial and peer review processes) would include:
10.2.8. Editors’ Responsibilities for Quality Assurance
Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognizing that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.
Best Practices for Editors (regarding quality assurance) would include:
10.2.9. Editors’ Responsibilities for Protecting Individual Data
Editors must obey laws on confidentiality in their own jurisdiction. Regardless of local statutes, however, they should always protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions. It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent for publication from people who might recognize themselves or be identified by others (e.g., from case reports or photographs). It may be possible to publish individual information without explicit consent if public interest considerations outweigh possible harms, obtaining consent is impossible, and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication.
Best Practices for Editors (regarding protecting individual data) would include:
10.2.10. Encouraging Ethical Research (e.g., research involving humans or animals)
10.2.10.1. Editors should endeavor to ensure that the research they publish was carried out according to the relevant international guidelines (e.g., the Declaration of Helsinki for clinical research, and the AERA and BERA guidelines for educational research).
10.2.10.2. Editors should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g., research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists. However, editors should recognize that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.
Best Practices for Editors (regarding encouraging ethical research) would include:
10.2.11. Dealing with Possible Misconduct
10.2.11.1. Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
10.2.11.2. Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct; they are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
10.2.11.3. Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable.
10.2.11.4. Editors should first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers, institution, or some appropriate body (e.g., regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate.
10.2.11.5. Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted. If this does not happen, editors should make all reasonable attempts to resolve the matter.
10.2.12. Ensuring the Integrity of the Academic Record
10.2.12.1. Errors, inaccurate, or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.
10.2.12.2. Editors should follow the COPE guidelines on retractions.
Best Practices for Editors (regarding the integrity of the academic record) would include:
10.2.13. Editors’ Responsibilities for Intellectual Property
Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with the publisher to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.
Best Practices for Editors (regarding intellectual property) would include:
10.2.14 Encouraging Debates
10.2.14.1. Editors should encourage and be willing to consider cogent criticisms of work published in their journal.
10.2.14.2. Authors of criticized material should be given the opportunity to respond.
10.2.14.3. Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.
Best Practices for Editors (regarding encouraging debates) would include:
10.2.15. Complaints
10.2.15.1. Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further. This mechanism should be made clear in the journal and include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE.
10.2.15.2. Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart on complaints.
10.2.16. Commercial Considerations
10.2.16.1. Journals should have policies and systems in place to ensure that commercial considerations do not affect editorial decisions (e.g., advertising departments should operate independently of editorial departments).
10.2.16.2. Editors should have declared policies on advertising in relation to the content of the journal and on processes for publishing sponsored supplements.
10.2.16.3. Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal unless a correction needs to be included, in which case it should be clearly identified.
Best Practices for Editors (regarding commercial considerations) would include:
10.3. Conflicts of Interest
10.3.1. Editors should use the COPE form and procedure for managing conflicts of interest issues.
10.3.2. Journals should have a declared process for handling submissions from the editors, employees, or members of the editorial board to ensure unbiased review.
10.4. Plagiarism
All authors are strongly recommended to check the content of their manuscripts before submission to the journal for publication. Authors may use trusted, valid “Plagiarism Checking Software” to ensure that their manuscripts are plagiarism-free. All submitted papers to the journal will also be checked for plagiarism upon receipt and before final publication using iThenticate and other plagiarism detection software.
If reviewers, editor-in-chiefs, readers, or editorial staff suspect or notice any type of plagiarism at any stage of the publication process, the manuscript will be rejected, and all authors, including the corresponding author, will be notified. Self-plagiarism is also considered and managed accordingly.
COPE’s code of conduct and flowcharts will be used if any plagiarism is detected in a submitted manuscript or in a published paper.
The journal has been published on a Semiannual basis from 2023 up to now.
The journal is now archiving electronically at the local and international repositories as follows:
The University of Mazandaran, as the journal owner and publisher, supports all publishing costs of the journal. Therefore, Article Processing Charge (APC) and any other publication fees in the journal are free for authors. There are NO APC charges for this journal.
The Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching does not have any direct marketing activities.
The Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching is committed to applying the codes and principles of conduct of the publisher, which are primarily derived from the “Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing,” published and updated on 15 September 2022 by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).