Open Reviewing Process for EJOLTS
We would like to develop an open review process. It means that communication between reviewers and authors is transparent and that our readers are able to participate in the whole process. For this purpose we have established our web space of cooperation (moodle) in which you can read the suggestions of our reviewers and post your comments.
One of the main distinguishing features of our review process is the degree of openness we are encouraging in it. It is hoped that not only will the reviewed have a sense of fairness and openness from the process and learn something from it, but that the reviewers themselves will also be able to learn from the accountability of an open process.
In submitting something for EJOLTS the author(s) has the right to choose one of the two reviewers. Through this we are hoping to encourage a more democratic system of accountability in which the power of the author is not reduced through the reviewing process and the author can watch – and even take part in – the reviewing process as it unfolds.
- The author(s) submits something to EJOLTS by using e-submission form with the name of one reviewer chosen to review it from the review panel (which we are adding to all the time).
- The editorial team will agree on a second reviewer and give a time-frame to each of the reviewers – i.e. when the first review of the paper should be completed by and posted at the forum.
- The author(s) needs to look through, and respond (if they want) at this space with their reviewers, and then make the necessary amendments to the submission.
- The author needs to submit it again at the site for consideration by the two reviewers and members of the editorial team, who will then make the final decision, with reasons, for their decision about publication.
It is difficult to be precise about time-frames, but it ought to be possible to go through the whole process within four-months. Of course everyone is busy, but such a commitment will enable us to publish two times a year, which is our original aim.
|Reviewing process2.pdf||75.65 KB|