PanSIG Journal Peer Review Process

Thank you for your interest in helping us with the peer review process. (If you haven't already signed up, click here to sign up for the PanSIG Journal review team.) Please understand that most of the journal manuscripts submitted can be reviewed by a generalist rather than a specialist. So, research and/or teaching expertise on a sub-genre is not absolutely necessary for review purposes.

The editor will assign you papers to review which are likely to be close to your area of interest. Within a week of the review paper being assigned, please feel free to inform us of your area-specific choice(s) if the assigned paper is not to your liking. We will send you a copy of the paper in your area (if available) and you can start your review. Please remember that you cannot choose a paper on your own. You can only choose the area of interest. Any request for an alternative paper to review must be received within 48-72 hours of receiving the assigned paper. In general, we ask that a review be completed within a week of being assigned. The editorial team will send you frequent reminders to complete the job. We will expect you to stay in touch with the editorial team throughout the review process.

Note: The PanSIG Journal is a peer-reviewed publication and we respect the principles of blind review. So, as much as possible, please avoid reviewing papers if you recognize the title and either attended the presentation at the conference or know the author. If you are assigned a paper that you know about, please avoid reviewing it.

How to Request a Paper to Review

Selecting a Paper: Authors will be assigned one paper each to review by the editorial team, unless the reviewer has agreed to be previously assigned to do more reviews. Due to our strict adherence to the policy of blind peer review, you cannot choose a paper based on its title and ID. However, you will have the choice to report your areas of interest to the editor, and the editor will choose a paper that closely fits your interest. If the author fails to notify the editor about his/her interest, the paper will be assigned based on something close to the author's topic for manuscript submission (if available).

When you submit a paper as an author, you will be contacted to fill out and submit a basic form that ask you about your SIG affiliation if any, and areas of interest within language studies. That information will be used to assign a paper to you for review.

Reviewing the Paper: We will be in touch with you to give you a copy of the paper(s) to review and the forms that you need to review it with. We will also give you additional information about the review process, as and when asked for. A sample review could be provided, if asked for, to help you with the review process. The editor will be available throughout the review process to answer any question or concern(s).

Publication of your Paper: Final publication of your paper will depend on all of the following:

  1. The paper must be peer-reviewed by at least two reviewers leading to final acceptance.
  2. The author must make timely and expected changes to the document as suggested by both the reviewers and the editor.
  3. The author must submit the review results for the paper assigned to them within a stipulated time period.
  4. The review results must clearly mention the changes expected and the strengths and shortcomings noticed.
  5. Any accepted paper will be published provided the author has turned in the review for the paper assigned to them.
  6. In case of a co-authored paper, the 2nd or 3rd author should be willing to peer review a manuscript if the first author is not available (for whatever reasons).
  7. The author must submit the copyright agreement form.

Workload: Over 40 manuscript submissions are expected each year. Based on past record, we are hoping that each reviewer would be able to review between 1-3 papers. Of course, some people may be able to volunteer to read more and some people do less. We appreciate any help that we can get, and you will be acknowledged as a PanSIG journal reviewer in the volume.

More details about the Peer Review process

Reviewing Stance: In general, we see the PanSIG Journal as an opportunity for PanSIG presenters to share what they presented at the conference to a wider audience. It is also a chance for professional development for many JALT members. As such, we ask that reviews are, as much as possible, constructive rather than evaluative. Please try to focus your comments on how the paper could be improved. A balanced review identifying positive and negative points with suggestions how to improve a paper, rather than a review which only identifies flaws, will be much more helpful as the author and editor move forward;

Remember that authors will revise their papers based on your reviews so the more comprehensive the review, the more helpful it will be. We focus on helping authors improve their papers rather than acting as an accept-reject gatekeeper. Of course, you may still recommend that the article be declined, but it will be more helpful for the author if you explain your reasons for doing so. Reasons for recommending rejection would include a flawed premise or methodology that cannot be rectified through revision.

Review Contents: The PanSIG journal review template uses a 5-point Likert scale form for various categories of information such as significance, clarity, organization, strength of research methods, teaching approach etc. Please refer to the template closely and organize your review and comments around the different points outlined in the attached template.

Sample Reviews: Before you begin reviewing, please feel free to ask for some sample reviews. We will email you these samples along with your paper. These samples should help you to get ready for your own reviews and help to ensure that all of the reviewers are on the same page.

Mentoring: If you are new to reviewing, please let us know. We can put you in touch with an experienced reviewer to act as a mentor for you. Else, the editor will personally help you. Also, if you are an experienced reviewer interested in being a mentor, please let us know.