ISELT’s ‎‎Online Manuscript Evaluation Form

Thank you for your valuable time and contributions to the review process.‎

Before making your final decision on the manuscript, we kindly ask that you read and familiarize yourself with the accompanying scoring rubric ‎and decision bands. This guideline is intended to support consistency, transparency, and fairness throughout the review process.‎

Please rate each item in the following form by selecting one option on a scale from 0 or 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent), following the scale’s order from least ‎to greatest quality. If an item is not applicable to the manuscript, please select “N/A” (if available) and provide an explanation in the comment section.‎

If further clarification is required from the author(s), kindly select “Undecided: I need to contact the editor.” This will prompt the editors to ‎mediate and assist you in obtaining the necessary information from the author(s). In such cases, please ensure that your request is clearly ‎specified in the comments section.‎

Sincerely,‎

ISELT’s Editor in Chief

See the Concise version ‎‎of ‎‎ISELT’s ‎‎Ethical ‎‎Guidelines for peer reviewers HERE.

See the ‎‎comprehensive ‎‎version ‎‎of ‎‎ISELT’s ‎‎Ethical ‎‎Guidelines for peer reviewers HERE.

Manuscript Evaluation Scoring Rubric and Decision Bands for Peer Review

Maximum Score Possible = 40 (Items 1–8: 5 points each × 5 = 40‎)

Excellent (36–40):

• Accept as is: Scores near maximum across all categories, with no serious ethical, methodological, or scope alignment issues (Acceptable as is).‎

Good (26–35):

• Accept with Minor Revision: Generally strong, with a few weaker points that can be addressed with “Minor Revision”.‎

Acceptable (20–25):

• Major Revision: Meets minimum scientific standards but requires improvements in several categories before acceptance (Major Revision).‎

Unacceptable (0–19):

• "Reject" or Resubmit: Indicates serious weaknesses (e.g., ethical problems, poor methodology, or lack of alignment/relevance), requiring “Resubmission” or “Rejection”.

---

Additional Notes

• Any score of 0 for Recommendation for Publication (item 8) automatically flags the manuscript as "Unacceptable" and ‎should trigger immediate editorial review.‎
• Comments (items 9 & 10) are optional and not scored, but must be considered for qualitative feedback.

---

Manuscript Evaluation Form
No. 1. Alignment with Journal Scope
Optional comment:
Not relevant 0	Weak alignment 2	Adequate alignment 3	Well-aligned with journal focus 4	Perfect match with journal theme 5
No. 2. Language and Organization
Optional comment:
Poor language and structure 1	Weak clarity or organization 2	Sufficient clarity and structure 3	Strong clarity and logical flow 4	Exemplary language and perfect organization 5
No. 3. Literature Review and Gap Identification
Optional comment:
Inadequate or outdated 1	Limited and insufficient gap identification 2	Moderately thorough with partial gap identification 3	Comprehensive with minor weaknesses 4	Exemplary review with clear identification of gaps 5
No. 4. Research Problem and Novelty
Optional comment:
Vague or weak research problem; lacks novelty 1	Weak problem; limited novelty 2	Problem is somewhat clear; moderately novel 3	Clear and relevant problem; sufficiently novel 4	Highly significant problem with exceptional novelty 5
No. 5. Methodology
Optional comment:
Inappropriate or poorly executed 1	Weak or inconsistent 2	Sufficient but requires improvement 3	Strong and appropriate for study 4	Exceptionally rigorous and well-suited methods 5
No. 6. Original contribution
Optional comment:
No contribution 0	Limited contribution 2	Moderate contribution 3	Significant contribution 4	Groundbreaking contribution 5
No. 7. Discussion, Findings, and Implications
Optional comment:
Findings unclear or not interpretable 1	Limited insights; weak ELT relevance 2	Adequate insights with moderate relevance 3	Clear findings with strong implications 4	Exceptional findings with transformative ELT impact 5
No. 8. Recommendation for Publication
Optional comment:
Reject: Unsuitable for publication 0	Revise and resubmit after extensive changes 1	Requires major revisions 2	Requires minor revisions before acceptance 4	Accept as is: Ready for publication 5
No. 9. Optional - Additional comments for author(s):
Please provide any additional feedback or suggestions that could help the author(s) improve their manuscript.
Optional comment:
No. 10. Optional - Additional comments for editor / editor in chief:
Kindly include any additional comments or observations that you believe would assist the editor in making a final decision about the manuscript.
Optional comment: