Peer Review Process

Datokarama English Education Journal (DEEJournal) applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and scholarly contribution of all published articles. In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed to maintain objectivity and minimize bias.

Review Model

Type of review: Double-blind peer review
Number of reviewers: Minimum of two independent reviewers
Review method: Structured evaluation using journal review criteria
Platform: Open Journal Systems (OJS)

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on:

subject-matter expertise
academic qualifications and publication record
absence of conflicts of interest

Editors ensure that reviewers:

are independent of the authors’ institution where possible
have no recent collaboration with the authors
can provide an objective and unbiased evaluation

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on:

Originality and novelty
Relevance to the journal’s scope
Theoretical and methodological rigor
Clarity and coherence of argumentation
Use of relevant and up-to-date literature
Contribution to the field of English language education, linguistics, or literature

Review Timeline

Reviewers are generally expected to:

accept or decline invitations within 7–14 days
complete reviews within 6–8 weeks

[Inference] Timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability.

Review Outcomes

Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject

Each recommendation must be supported by clear, constructive, and evidence-based comments.

Confidentiality and Ethics

Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents
Reviewers must not share or use unpublished data
Conflicts of interest must be declared
Reviews must be objective and free from personal bias

Revision and Re-Review

Authors must respond to all reviewer comments in a structured response document
Revised manuscripts may be:
- returned to the original reviewers (especially for major revisions), or
- evaluated by the editor for minor revisions

Final Evaluation

The final recommendation from reviewers serves as the basis for editorial decision-making but does not bind the editor, who retains full responsibility for the final decision.