The peer-review process of the "Journal of Discourse Analysis & Critical Studies" is designed to maintain high academic standards and ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and scholarly integrity of published research. Its purpose is to provide an independent and impartial assessment of submitted manuscripts and to verify their compliance with the journal’s scientific, ethical, and editorial requirements.

All reviewers are expected to conduct their assessments objectively, maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and related materials, disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest, and comply with the principles set out in the journal’s Publication Ethics policy.

 

1. Peer-review model

The "Journal of Discourse Analysis & Critical Studies" operates a double-blind peer-review system. The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

Authors are therefore required to prepare their manuscripts in a manner that does not reveal their identity. The editorial office also checks manuscripts before peer review and removes identifying information where necessary.

 

2. Preliminary editorial screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo preliminary editorial screening to determine whether they comply with the journal’s Publication Terms, Formatting Guidelines, scope, and basic requirements concerning research and publication ethics.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external peer review. Only manuscripts that successfully pass the preliminary screening proceed to the peer-review stage.

 

3. Initial editorial assessment

The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, or another appropriately qualified member of the Editorial Board conducts an initial assessment of each manuscript. This assessment considers the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, its scholarly quality, originality, and suitability for external peer review.

If the Editor-in-Chief has an actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to a submitted manuscript, including authorship or co-authorship of the manuscript or relevant personal, family, institutional, financial, or professional relationships with the authors, they take no part in its assessment or editorial decision. Responsibility for handling the manuscript is transferred to the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or another independent member of the Editorial Board who has no conflict of interest.

Once a manuscript has passed the initial assessment, it is assigned a registration number and prepared for anonymised external peer review.

 

4. Selection and appointment of reviewers

Each manuscript that proceeds to external peer review is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the submission.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic qualifications, research expertise, and ability to provide an independent and competent assessment of the manuscript. Reviewers must not have any relationship with the authors or their institutions that could reasonably be perceived as affecting the objectivity of the review.

Before accepting an invitation to review, reviewers are required to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest. A reviewer who considers that a conflict of interest may prevent an impartial assessment must decline the invitation.

The editorial office provides reviewers with the anonymised manuscript, instructions for reviewers, and the journal’s review form.

 

5. Confidentiality of peer review

Manuscripts submitted for peer review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, discuss, or otherwise share the manuscript or information contained within it with third parties without prior permission from the editorial office.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information, data, arguments, interpretations, or other material obtained through the peer-review process for personal, professional, academic, financial, or other advantage.

 

6. Criteria for assessment

Reviewers are asked to assess, where applicable:

• whether the manuscript corresponds to its stated title, purpose, and research objectives;
• the originality, scientific novelty, and relevance of the research;
• the appropriateness and transparency of the methodology;
• the validity and adequate presentation of the results;
• whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence presented;
• the theoretical and/or practical significance of the research;
• the adequacy and relevance of the literature cited;
• the clarity, coherence, and scholarly quality of the manuscript;
• compliance with applicable principles of research and publication ethics.

Reviewers should provide constructive, evidence-based, and sufficiently detailed comments to support their recommendation.

 

7. Reviewer recommendations and review period

Following their assessment, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

• accept for publication;
• accept subject to minor revisions;
• reconsider after major revisions;
• reject.

Recommendations for revision or rejection must be accompanied by clear and reasoned comments explaining the grounds for the recommendation.

Reviewers are normally requested to submit their reports within two weeks of accepting the review invitation. Where additional time is required, the reviewer should inform the editorial office.

If the two reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor may seek an additional independent review before an editorial decision is made.

Peer-review reports and related editorial documentation are retained in the journal’s editorial records for three years from the date of publication of the relevant issue.

 

8. Revision and communication with authors

The editorial office communicates the editorial decision to the corresponding author. Where revisions are required, the author receives the reviewers’ anonymised comments and is invited to submit a revised manuscript together with a response explaining how the reviewers’ comments have been addressed.

Depending on the nature and extent of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be reassessed by the handling editor and/or returned to the original reviewers or other independent reviewers.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance. A manuscript may be rejected if the revisions fail to address substantive concerns raised during peer review or if significant scientific, ethical, or editorial problems remain unresolved.

 

9. Final editorial decision

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or another authorised editor, taking into account the reviewers’ assessments, the authors’ responses to requested revisions, and the journal’s editorial and ethical requirements.

The final decision is an editorial decision and is not determined solely by the reviewers’ recommendations.

Editors and Editorial Board members must not participate in the assessment, peer review, or decision-making process for manuscripts in which they have an actual or potential conflict of interest. Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, their family members, close collaborators, colleagues where a conflict may reasonably arise, or members of their research group are handled independently by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or another qualified editor with no conflict of interest. The Editor-in-Chief has no access to or influence over the editorial decision in such cases.

The same principles apply to manuscripts submitted by other members of the Editorial Board: the submitting editor takes no part in the selection of reviewers, the peer-review process, or the final decision concerning the manuscript.

Typical peer-review period: 2-4 weeks.

Average time to first editorial decision: 4-8 weeks.