ASLTL operates a rigorous double-blind peer review process: reviewers do not know the identity of the author(s), and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. This process is designed to ensure that editorial decisions are based solely on the scholarly merit of the work.

Stage 1 Editorial Screening

Every manuscript is first examined by the editorial office to confirm that it falls within the journal's scope, follows the Author Guidelines, has been properly anonymised, and passes the similarity/plagiarism check. Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements may be returned to the author for revision or desk-rejected without external review, typically within [2–3 weeks] of submission.

Stage 2 Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass screening are assigned by the handling editor to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise. Where the two reviewers' recommendations diverge significantly, the editor may invite a third reviewer or make the decision directly, drawing on their own expert assessment.

Review Criteria

•     Originality and contribution to the field

•     Theoretical and/or methodological soundness

•     Engagement with relevant prior literature

•     Clarity, organisation, and quality of argumentation

•     Significance of findings or implications for theory, practice, or pedagogy

Stage 3 Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' reports and their own reading, the handling editor reaches one of the following decisions:

•     Accept: the manuscript is ready for publication, possibly with minor copyediting.

•     Minor Revisions: small, well-defined changes are requested; the revised manuscript is normally checked by the editor without a further full review round.

•     Major Revisions:  substantial changes to argument, methodology, or analysis are required; the revised manuscript is normally returned to the original reviewers.

•     Reject: the manuscript is not accepted for publication, with reasons provided to the author.

Timeline

ASLTL aims to provide authors with a first editorial decision within approximately [8–12 weeks] of submission, though timelines vary with reviewer availability and manuscript complexity. Authors can monitor the status of their submission through the online system at any time.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are asked to provide a substantive, constructive report addressing the criteria above, to flag any suspected ethical issues (including undisclosed AI-generated content or plagiarism) to the editor directly rather than to the author, and to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and the review process.

Appeals

Authors who believe a decision was based on a misunderstanding of the manuscript, a factual error in a reviewer's report, or a procedural issue may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, explaining the grounds for appeal in detail. Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief, who may consult an independent reviewer or editorial board member not previously involved in the manuscript's handling.