Peer Review Process

TINOMBALA: Journal of Language Education and Social Sciences follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the academic quality, integrity, and relevance of all manuscripts considered for publication. The review process consists of the following stages.

1. Initial Desk Review

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening conducted by the Managing Editor or a designated member of the editorial team. The purpose of this stage is to determine whether the manuscript meets the journal's basic requirements and is suitable for further consideration.

The initial screening considers:

• Scope and Relevance: Whether the manuscript falls within the aims and scope of TINOMBALA, particularly in language education, applied linguistics, or relevant interdisciplinary areas of the social sciences.
• Originality and Similarity Screening: Manuscripts are screened using appropriate similarity-detection software, such as Turnitin or iThenticate. Similarity reports are used as an editorial screening tool, and any substantial or inappropriate overlap with previously published or submitted material may result in rejection or a request for clarification or revision.
• Formatting and Submission Requirements: Whether the manuscript follows the journal's prescribed template, structure, referencing requirements, and APA 7th edition style where applicable.
• Basic Scholarly Quality: Whether the manuscript demonstrates adequate academic writing, a clearly articulated research problem, appropriate methodological procedures, and sufficient scholarly development to proceed to external review.
• Ethical Compliance: Where applicable, whether the manuscript provides appropriate information regarding research ethics, informed consent, data collection, conflicts of interest, and other relevant ethical requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements or fall substantially outside its scope may be declined at this stage without external peer review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area.

TINOMBALA uses a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

Reviewers are selected based on:

• expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject and methodology;
• scholarly experience and research specialization;
• absence of identifiable conflicts of interest; and
• availability to complete the review within the required timeframe.

Reviewers are normally given 2–4 weeks to complete their evaluations, although the actual timeframe may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.

3. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts using criteria appropriate to the nature of the submission. Key considerations include:

• Originality and Scholarly Contribution: Does the manuscript provide meaningful new knowledge, insights, interpretations, or theoretical contributions?
• Theoretical and Conceptual Foundation: Is the study appropriately grounded in relevant theoretical or conceptual perspectives?
• Methodological Rigor: Are the research design, participants or data sources, procedures, instruments, and analytical methods appropriate and sufficiently rigorous?
• Literature Engagement: Does the manuscript engage critically with relevant, credible, and sufficiently current scholarly literature?
• Analysis and Interpretation: Are the findings or arguments adequately analyzed, interpreted, and supported by the evidence?
• Clarity and Coherence: Is the manuscript logically organized, clearly written, and coherent in its presentation of arguments and findings?
• Relevance to the Journal: Does the manuscript make a substantive contribution to language education, applied linguistics, or relevant areas of the social sciences?
• Ethical and Scholarly Integrity: Does the manuscript demonstrate appropriate ethical and scholarly practices?

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, specific, and evidence-based comments and to clearly distinguish between major concerns and minor issues.

4. Editorial Decision

Following the peer-review process, the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor makes the final editorial decision after considering the reviewers' reports, the manuscript's scholarly quality, and the journal's editorial standards.

Possible decisions include:

• Accept: The manuscript is considered suitable for publication without substantive revision.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions that do not fundamentally affect its research design, analysis, or central argument.
• Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for publication or contains substantial conceptual, methodological, ethical, or scholarly limitations.

The editorial decision is not necessarily determined by a simple majority of reviewer recommendations. The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for the final decision and may seek additional reviews when necessary.

5. Revision and Resubmission

When revisions are requested, authors must submit:

1. a revised version of the manuscript; and
2. a detailed Response to Reviewers document explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed.

Authors should clearly indicate the changes made in the revised manuscript and provide a reasoned response when a reviewer recommendation is not adopted.

Revised manuscripts may undergo further editorial assessment and, when necessary, another round of peer review. The number of revision rounds depends on the extent of the required changes and the Editor's assessment of the manuscript.

6. Final Editorial Check and Production

Once the manuscript has received a final acceptance decision, it undergoes the journal's production process, which may include copyediting, language editing, formatting, reference checking, and typesetting.

The final version is reviewed by the editorial team and, where applicable, returned to the authors for proofreading. Following completion of the production process, the article is published in accordance with the journal's publication schedule.

TINOMBALA reserves the right to withdraw or reconsider a publication decision if substantive ethical or scholarly concerns are identified at any stage before publication.