Peer Review Process

The peer review process constitutes a fundamental mechanism for safeguarding the scholarly quality and academic integrity of research published in The Context Journal of English Studies. Employing a rigorous evaluation framework, this process ensures that submitted manuscripts undergo thorough scrutiny, providing authors with constructive feedback to enhance their work while upholding the journal’s commitment to publishing methodologically sound and intellectually significant research.

Submission and Initial Screening

  1. Submission: Manuscripts must be submitted electronically via the journal’s designated online submission system.

  2. Initial Screening: The editorial team conducts a preliminary assessment to determine the manuscript’s suitability, evaluating its alignment with the journal’s scope and compliance with submission guidelines. Submissions failing to meet these criteria may be declined at this stage.

Plagiarism Screening

All manuscripts are subjected to plagiarism detection using industry-standard software. Submissions exhibiting excessive similarity to previously published works or evidence of academic misconduct are summarily rejected.

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

  1. Reviewer Assignment: Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to a minimum of two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant discipline.

  2. Anonymity: The journal adheres to a double-blind review protocol, wherein the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the evaluation process.

Review Criteria

Reviewers assess submissions based on the following scholarly benchmarks:

  • Originality and Relevance: The significance and novelty of the research topic within the field.

  • Methodological Rigor: Clarity of research objectives, appropriateness of methodology, and robustness of analytical frameworks.

  • Contribution to Knowledge: The substantive value and implications of the findings.

  • Argumentation and Structure: Logical coherence, theoretical grounding, and clarity of presentation.

  • Ethical Compliance: Proper attribution of sources and adherence to established research ethics.

Reviewer Recommendations

Upon evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept: The manuscript is deemed suitable for publication without further revisions.

  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires limited modifications prior to acceptance.

  • Major Revisions: Substantive revisions are necessary, warranting re-evaluation upon resubmission.

  • Reject: The manuscript fails to meet the journal’s academic standards.

Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief renders the final publication decision based on reviewer assessments and the journal’s editorial policies. Authors receive notification detailing the decision, accompanied by reviewers’ comments and required revisions.

Revision Process

  1. Minor Revisions: Authors are allotted a brief period to address reviewers’ suggestions.

  2. Major Revisions: Authors are granted an extended timeframe for substantial revisions, after which the revised manuscript undergoes further peer review.

Final Approval and Publication

Upon satisfactory revision, the editorial team conducts a final review to ensure compliance with all publication standards. Accepted manuscripts are scheduled for publication in the next available issue.

AI Use Disclosure

  • Authors must declare any generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT) used in writing, analysis, or data generation.

  • AI tools cannot be listed as co-authors; human accountability for content is required.

  • Violations may lead to retraction or sanctions per COPE guidelines.

University-Mandated Standards

  • Complies with institutional review policies.

  • Requires funding sources, conflicts of interest, and ethical clearance to be declared.

Turnaround Time

The peer review process typically requires 1–3 weeks, contingent upon reviewer availability and the extent of revisions requested.

Ethical Considerations

The journal strictly adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, ensuring fairness, impartiality, and ethical integrity throughout the review process.

Production and Dissemination

Accepted manuscripts undergo professional copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading before being published online under an open-access model, ensuring broad dissemination to the academic community.

Confidentiality and Transparency

All submissions and peer review communications are treated with strict confidentiality. The double-blind review process ensures impartiality, while the journal maintains transparency in its editorial procedures, upholding the highest ethical standards in scholarly publishing.

If you have any queries related to the above peer review process/policy kindly write to thecontext@outlook.com