The International Journal of Current Approaches in Language, Education and Social Sciences (CALESS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly quality, transparency, and research integrity. All submissions undergo a rigorous editorial screening and double blind peer review process to ensure the publication of original, relevant, and high quality research.
Initial Editorial Assessment
Upon submission, manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editorial Office and the Editor in Chief. At this stage, submissions are assessed for:
- relevance to the aims and scope of the journal;
- originality and scholarly contribution;
- compliance with ethical publishing standards;
- appropriate disclosure and use of artificial intelligence tools, where applicable;
- similarity and plagiarism screening;
- basic compliance with submission requirements.
Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements of the journal may be returned to the authors for correction or declined before external review.
Double Blind Peer Review
CALESS operates a strict double blind peer review system. Neither authors nor reviewers are informed of the identities of each other throughout the review process. Following successful editorial screening, each manuscript is assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the requested timeframe or declines the invitation, an alternative reviewer is appointed to ensure a timely evaluation process.
Reviewer Evaluation
Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts with regard to:
- originality and significance;
- theoretical and methodological soundness;
- scholarly rigor;
- clarity of presentation and organization;
- adequacy of references and engagement with relevant literature;
- contribution to the fields of language, education, and social sciences.
Editorial Contributions
The Editor in Chief or coeditors cannot bypass or modify the established peer review procedures of the journal. Authorship of editorial members is subject to the same double blind peer review process as all other manuscripts. For such authorship, the contributor is excluded from all editorial decisions and reviewer selection in case of any conflict of interest.
Recommendations and Revision Process
Reviewers provide detailed reports and make one of the following recommendations: Accept with Minor Revision, Accept with Major Revision, Resubmission, or Decline.
Authors receiving revision requests are expected to submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response explaining how reviewer comments have been addressed. Manuscripts requiring major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. In cases where reviewer concerns indicate substantial methodological, theoretical, or scholarly weaknesses that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision, the manuscript may be rejected.
Editorial Decision
The final publication decision is based on reviewer reports, the recommendation of the handling editor, and the evaluation of the Editor in Chief. Possible editorial decisions include:
- Accept for publication;
- Accept with Minor Revisions;
- Revise and Resubmit;
- Reject.
The Editor in Chief retains overall responsibility for all editorial decisions and publication outcomes.
Review Timeline
CALESS aims to complete the peer review process in a timely and efficient manner. The average review period is approximately six weeks from the date a manuscript is sent for external review. Actual review times may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the submission.
Special Issues
Manuscripts submitted to special issues are subject to the same editorial screening, ethical standards, and double blind peer review procedures as regular submissions. Guest editors may assist in the management of special issues; however, all editorial decisions remain subject to the oversight of the Editor in Chief and the editorial policies of the journal.