The official website of the journal «Theoretical and Applied Linguistics»
Amur State University

Peer reviews

Peer Review process of manuscripts submitted to the journal «Theoretical and Applied Linguistics»


Every manuscript submitted to the journal «Theoretical and Applied Linguistics» (further referred to as the Journal) is subject to obligatory peer review process.

The author of a manuscript can provide a review signed by an independent expert in the appropriate linguistic realm (theoretical or applied). In this case the editors and the editorial board (taken together are further referred to as the Board) might direct the article for further peer review.
The manuscript submitted to the Journal is viewed by the General Editor for its correspondence with the Journal's profile and for meeting the Journal's standards and requirements to layout and format. The manuscript is registered and sent for peer review to an expert (with Doctoral degree or PhD) in the corresponding field.

For peer review the Journal enlists qualified experts from the Board or outer qualified experts or highly experienced practical specialists. Reviewers are required to have a scientific degree (Doctoral or PhD) or not less than 5-year experience in the field.

The electronic or hard-copy paper is sent to the reviewer. Reviewers are informed that the manuscripts they receive for peer review are the intellectual property of the authors and contain the data that can not be disclosed. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts and share them with 3rd parties.

Peer review is confidential. Reviews can be sent to authors of manuscripts on official inquiry by e-mail, fax or post. The identity of the reviewer (reviewer's name, job place and position) is not shared with the author. Review reports cannot be shared with 3rd parties, unless there is an official inquiry from Expert Commissions of the Supreme Qualification Commission.

The time taken to review is determined by the General Editor and is stipulated with the reviewer taking into consideration the necessity to facilitate the publishing process. However, reviewers are to manage the deadline which is one month after receiving the manuscript by the reviewer. The reviewer can decline to review the paper within one week from receiving the manuscript and inform the Board about the decision.

In the review the following aspects should be enlightened:
1) correspondence of the manuscript content with its title;
2) correspondence of the manuscript content with current achievements of modern science;
3) intelligibility of the language and style of the manuscript for the target audience;
4) intelligibility of artwork (tables, figures, graphs, diagrams);
5) appropriateness for the journal from the point of view of importance, novelty and originality of the research described in the manuscript;
6) specific advantages and disadvantages of the manuscript;
7) corrections and / or additions (if necessary).

The reviewer might offer recommendations to the author and the Board to improve the manuscript. Reviewer's critical comments must be objective, specific and should be directed to improving of the scientific and methodological levels of publications.

At the end of the review classification of the article according to three categories must be given:
1) accept without revision;
2) accept with minor revision;
3) accept with major revision (with submitting the revised version to the same reviewer);
4) reject on account of not corresponding the Journal's profile and / or not meeting the Journal's standards (if a manuscript falls under this category no reviewing of revised paper is possible). The review with the reject classification is sent to the author of the manuscript by e-mail, fax or post.

In case of reject recommendation the reviewer must be specific to explain the reasoning of comments and judgment.

If the review contains recommendations on revising the manuscript, it is directed to the author offering two options: to revise the manuscript or to disprove the necessity of revision partly or totally. Revised manuscript is directed for the secondary review to the same reviewer.

If the author disagrees with the reviewer's judgment and recommendations he or she is entitled to ask the Board for changing the reviewer providing well-embedded reasoning for such a request. In this case the Board either directs the manuscript to another reviewer or gives the author a motivated rejection.

Accept recommendation of the reviewer does not guarantee publication of your article. The final decision of whether to accept or reject a particular manuscript lies with the editors and if necessary, the Board.

Manuscripts that received reject judgment (including revised articles) are not published.

On author's inquiry the Board informs the author about the final decision by e-mail, fax or post giving all necessary reasoning for the decision.

The Board does not store rejected manuscripts. No hard copies of manuscripts, no matter accepted or rejected, are returned to authors.

Original reviews are stored by the Board during the period of three years from the moment of their signing by reviewers.


General Editor, Doctor of Philology, professor Svetlana V. Androsova

Peer review form (MS Office 97/2003)

journal cover