Peer Review Policy

Austronesian: Journal of Language Science & Literature applies a double-blind peer review system to all research articles considered for publication. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript's subject area.

The peer review process is designed to assess the manuscript's originality, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, analytical validity, clarity, relevance to the journal's scope, and compliance with publication ethics. The process consists of the following stages.


Stage 1. Manuscript Submission

Responsible of Author

  1. The author submits the manuscript through the journal's online submission system.
  2. The author ensures that the manuscript follows the journal's author guidelines, formatting requirements, and publication ethics policies.
  3. The author provides the required submission information, including the manuscript title, abstract, keywords, author details, affiliations, and other requested declarations.
  4. The author submits a manuscript file prepared for double-blind review. Names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and other information that could reveal the authors' identities must be removed from the review file.
  5. The author provides applicable declarations, including the ethics statement, conflict of interest declaration, funding information, data availability statement, and declaration of generative AI use, where required by the journal's policies.

Editorial action: The submission is recorded in the journal's system, and the corresponding author receives a submission acknowledgment.


Stage 2. Technical Check and Initial Screening

Responsible of Managing Editor and Editor-in-Chief or designated Editor

  1. The Managing Editor checks whether the submission is complete and whether the required files and declarations have been provided.
  2. The Managing Editor checks compliance with the journal's manuscript template, author guidelines, reference style, and basic formatting requirements.
  3. The manuscript undergoes a similarity check using the journal's designated plagiarism-screening software. The resulting report is examined by the editor; a similarity score alone does not determine whether plagiarism has occurred.
  4. The Editor-in-Chief or a designated Editor evaluates the manuscript's relevance to the journal's aims and scope, its basic scholarly quality, its apparent originality, and its suitability for external peer review.
  5. The editor may return the submission to the author for technical corrections, request clarification, reject the manuscript without external review, or approve it for further editorial handling.

Possible outcomes:

  • Returned for technical correction: The author must address the identified submission requirements before the manuscript proceeds.
  • Rejected at initial screening: The editor informs the author of the decision and, where appropriate, provides the reasons.
  • Passed initial screening: The manuscript proceeds to editorial assignment and reviewer selection.

Passing the technical check does not guarantee that a manuscript will be sent for external peer review or accepted for publication.


Stage 3. Editorial Assignment and Reviewer Selection

Responsible of Editor-in-Chief and Handling Editor or Managing Editor

  1. The Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to a Handling Editor or designated editorial board member with relevant subject expertise.
  2. The Handling Editor examines the manuscript and identifies at least two qualified, independent reviewers whose expertise matches the research topic, methodology, or theoretical framework.
  3. The editor invites the selected reviewers and provides the manuscript, review guidelines, evaluation criteria, and review deadline through the journal's submission system.
  4. Invited reviewers are asked to confirm their availability, relevant expertise, and absence of conflicts of interest.
  5. If an invited reviewer declines or does not respond within a reasonable period, the editor sends a reminder or invites an alternative reviewer.
  6. The Managing Editor monitors the progress of reviewer invitations and communicates with the Handling Editor when additional action is required.

Reviewers must not have conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality. The identities of the authors must remain concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers must remain concealed from the authors.

Editorial action: Once the reviewers accept the invitations, the manuscript enters the external peer review stage.


Stage 4. Double-Blind Peer Review

Responsible of Two independent reviewers

Each reviewer independently evaluates the manuscript and submits a review report through the journal's submission system. Reviewers assess the following aspects, as applicable:

  1. Relevance and originality: Whether the manuscript fits the journal's scope and offers a meaningful contribution to language science, linguistics, literature, or related fields.
  2. Research problem and objectives: Whether the research problem, objectives, and research questions are clear and justified.
  3. Literature review and theoretical framework: Whether the literature is relevant and sufficiently current, the research gap is established, and the theoretical framework is appropriate.
  4. Methodology: Whether the research design, data sources, participants or materials, data collection procedures, and analytical methods are appropriate and sufficiently transparent.
  5. Results and discussion: Whether the findings are supported by the data, the analysis is convincing, and the discussion is connected to relevant literature and theory.
  6. Conclusions and implications: Whether the conclusions follow from the findings and the contribution of the research is adequately explained.
  7. Academic writing and presentation: Whether the manuscript is coherent, clearly written, appropriately structured, and adequately referenced.
  8. Research ethics and integrity: Whether relevant ethical requirements, data integrity, citation practices, and other applicable publication ethics standards have been addressed.

Each reviewer submits constructive comments for the author and a confidential recommendation for the editor. The recommendation should be supported by clear academic reasoning.

Reviewers may recommend:

  • Accept without revision
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision

Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the deadline specified in the invitation. The editor may send reminders, extend the deadline when justified, or invite replacement reviewers if necessary.

Editorial action: The Handling Editor checks whether the required review reports have been received and whether they provide sufficient information to support an editorial decision.


Stage 5. Editorial Evaluation and First Decision

Responsible of Handling Editor and Editor-in-Chief

  1. The Handling Editor examines both review reports, compares the reviewers' recommendations, and assesses the substantive comments.
  2. The editor considers the reviewers' assessments alongside the manuscript's scholarly quality, the journal's scope, publication ethics requirements, and editorial standards.
  3. If both reports are sufficient, the editor proceeds to an editorial decision.
  4. If the reports are incomplete, unclear, or substantially contradictory, the editor may request clarification, seek an additional review, or conduct further editorial assessment.
  5. The editor makes or recommends one of the following decisions, according to the journal's editorial authority and workflow:
    • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive changes. Any necessary production corrections may still be required.
    • Minor Revision: The manuscript may be accepted after limited corrections or clarifications. The editor determines whether the revisions can be verified editorially or should be returned to a reviewer.
    • Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial changes to its analysis, argument, methodology, literature engagement, or presentation before it can be reconsidered.
    • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements for publication. Rejection may occur at this stage even when revision could be possible, if the deficiencies are fundamental.
  6. The Managing Editor communicates the decision to the corresponding author and provides the reviewers' comments, with identifying information removed.

Important: A reviewer recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the editor, not by the reviewers collectively.


Stage 6. Manuscript Revision

Responsible of Author

When revision is requested, the corresponding author must:

  1. Revise the manuscript in accordance with the editor's decision and the reviewers' comments.
  2. Prepare a point-by-point response to reviewers, reproducing or summarizing each comment and explaining how it has been addressed.
  3. Identify the corresponding changes in the revised manuscript, using tracked changes or another format specified by the journal.
  4. Provide a reasoned explanation where a reviewer suggestion is not adopted.
  5. Ensure that revisions do not introduce unsupported claims, inaccurate references, methodological inconsistencies, or ethical concerns.
  6. Resubmit the revised manuscript and response document through the journal's submission system by the deadline stated in the decision letter. If additional time is needed, the author should request an extension from the editorial office.

A revised submission does not automatically guarantee acceptance. If the author fails to submit a revision within the specified period and does not obtain an extension, the journal may close the submission in accordance with its procedures.


Stage 7. Evaluation of the Revised Manuscript

Responsible of Handling Editor and, where necessary, the original reviewers

  1. The Managing Editor checks whether the revised manuscript and point-by-point response have been submitted in the required format.
  2. The Handling Editor compares the revised manuscript with the reviewers' comments and evaluates the adequacy of the author's responses.
  3. For minor revisions, the editor may verify the changes directly if the revisions are straightforward and do not require further specialist assessment.
  4. For major revisions, or when the substantive issues require renewed expert judgment, the editor sends the revised manuscript and response document back to the original reviewers.
  5. Reviewers assess whether their concerns have been adequately addressed and may recommend acceptance, further revision, or rejection.
  6. If necessary, the editor may request another revision round or seek additional expert advice.

The journal may conduct more than one revision round when required. Each round follows the same principles of independent evaluation, confidentiality, and editorial accountability.


Stage 8. Final Editorial Decision

Responsible of Handling Editor and Editor-in-Chief

After evaluating the revised manuscript and any additional review reports, the editor makes the final decision.

  • Accepted: The manuscript satisfies the journal's scholarly and editorial requirements and proceeds to production.
  • Further revision required: Remaining concerns must be addressed before a final decision can be made.
  • Rejected: The manuscript remains unsuitable for publication because of unresolved substantive, methodological, ethical, or editorial concerns.

The Managing Editor informs the corresponding author of the decision and any required next steps. The editor may reject a revised manuscript if the author has not adequately addressed critical concerns raised during peer review.


Stage 9. Copyediting, Proofreading, and Publication

Responsible of Managing Editor, Production Editor, and Author

  1. The accepted manuscript is transferred to the production stage.
  2. The Managing Editor or Production Editor coordinates copyediting, reference checks, formatting, and preparation of the publication-ready version.
  3. The author may be asked to clarify editorial queries and verify the accuracy of names, affiliations, references, tables, figures, and other production elements.
  4. The author reviews the page proofs and reports typographical or production errors within the specified period. Proof corrections should not introduce substantial new content or unapproved changes to the research.
  5. The editorial team completes the final checks and publishes the article in the designated issue or online publication format.

Acceptance for publication is distinct from final publication. The article is published only after the required production and quality-control procedures have been completed.


Confidentiality, Conflicts of Interest, and Reviewer Independence

All manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not disclose manuscript content, share confidential materials with unauthorized parties, or use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage. Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments where impartiality may be compromised.

Authors and reviewers must not attempt to identify or contact one another regarding a manuscript under review. All substantive communication concerning the review process must be conducted through the editorial office or the journal's submission system.

Editors must maintain impartiality and confidentiality throughout the process. If an editor has a conflict of interest involving a submission, the manuscript must be assigned to an independent editor. The journal may take appropriate action if a breach of confidentiality, reviewer misconduct, or other publication ethics concern is identified.