The Review Process

Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere are described in COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (see the link).
The complete review process is expected to take two to three months but can take longer depending on the number of papers currently in review. Authors can expect to hear from the Journal Editor or Editorial Team member within three weeks of submission of your manuscript.
Step 1
The automated submission section is available on the JLE site (please follow the link). To submit a completed manuscript you need to register, log in, go to your account, and upload the manuscript.
Once a manuscript is submitted for publication, the manuscript is checked by the Journal’s Editorial Team to ensure that it is suitable to go through the normal peer review process. Once this is done, the manuscript is sent to an appropriate Editor based on the subject of the manuscript and the availability of the Editors. All manuscripts shall be handled by an Editor who does not have any potential conflict of interest with any of the manuscript’s authors.
Step 2
If the Editor finds that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the JLE, the manuscript should be assigned for review to two or three external Reviewers considered to have the expertise in the subject area of the manuscript for a careful dispassionate review. The identity of the authors and their institutional affiliations will be concealed from the Reviewers. They will review the paper for:
  • content;
  • relevance;
  • timeliness;
  • and value to the readership.
Step 3
When all Reviewers have submitted their reports, the manuscript can be adjudged by the Editor into one of four categories:
  1. accepted for publication;
  2. accepted with minor modifications (The manuscript requires some revisions before it can be accepted);
  3. accepted with major modifications (The Journal is interested, but the manuscript is not acceptable in its current form and needs to be revised to be considered for publication);
  4. willing rejection (The manuscript is not suitable for publication unless the authors conduct further research or collect additional data);
  5. not accepted (Publication is declined and the reviewers’ comments are provided to the authors).
The results of the review will be communicated to the Editor for onward transmission to the authors. The editorial workflow gives the Editors the authority to reject any manuscript because of inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results. The Editor cannot assign himself/herself as an external Reviewer of the manuscript. This is to ensure a high-quality, fair, and unbiased peer-review process of every manuscript submitted to the Journal, since any manuscript must be recommended by one or more (usually two or more) external Reviewers along with the Editor in charge of the manuscript in order for it to be accepted for publication in the Journal."
Step 4
If required, authors are to modify the manuscript in light of the Reviewers' comments and suggestions and resubmit the manuscript within two-three weeks. Authors should also send bios and photos at this time.
Step 5
When the manuscript is finally accepted for publication, the Editor will schedule the publication and inform the authors of the particular number and volume of the Journal in which the article will be published.
The Editor-in-Chief reviews the final submission and may raise further questions. The Editor-in-Chief is the only person who can officially accept a paper. The Editor’s formal acceptance sends an article into manuscript editing (for copyediting) and production.