Peer Review Process

International Journal of English and Comparative Literary Studies is committed to peer-reviewing integrity and upholding the highest standards of review. All publishable materials – articles, review articles, reviews, interviews – go through rigorous peer-reviewing process. Peer-review is defined as “obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers’ expert in the field of publication.” IJECLS follows a double blind peer review system after an initial editorial review at the board level. Below are the details of the peer-review process:

  • Upon receiving submission, the editorial board will do the first scrutiny review.
  • Only when a work’s originality and rigour is confirmed at the board level, the Chief Editor will erase all author-identifying information and send the work for blind peer review.
  • All reviews are done by experts in the field.
  • Reviewers are given an in-house ‘Review Report’ where they are asked to check ‘Yes’, ‘Partially’ or ‘No’ on eight areas including originality, coherence, communicability, argumentation, rigour, secondary research and innovation, and factual errors.
  • Reviewers are asked to give a decision in the Form out of the following four: rejection, major revision, minor revision, publication in its current form.
  • Reviewers then write a substantive commentary in the Review Report forms, justifying their decision. Often reviewers will ask for revisions and inform the authors/editors in point-by-point fashion where and how revision will have to be implemented. They will also point out any secondary research that needs to be cited or has been cited incorrectly. They will then send the work back to the Chief Editors.
  • Chief Editors will then contact contributors with the report and where necessary start the revision process, outlining a time period for revision (not more than one month).
  • Upon receiving revised work by contributors, Chief Editors will contact reviewers.
  • Reviewers may ask for another quick revision.
  • If a major revision is suggested by a reviewer and if Chief Editors recommend it, the revised article may be sent back to the original reviewer for a second read.
  • When the work is ready for publication, they will be sent to the publishing team for final editing, proof reading and publication.
  • Reviewers will have to disclose if there is a conflict of interest (blind peer review system and the best practices of academic integrity ensure that all conflicts of interest are taken care of). All reviewed articles are treated confidentially prior to their publication.

We do our best to notify the decisions within one month. Should a writer intend to withdraw their article within the stipulated time, they must take permission from the chief editor by sending an email or a letter of declaration. For two or more authors, permission and approval of the authorial team is necessary.