Instructions to Reviewers

Reviewers of Language Teaching Research Quarterly (LTRQ) are asked to evaluate each manuscript objectively, critically, constructively, and consistently. The purpose of peer review is not only to identify weaknesses but also to assess the manuscript's scholarly contribution, methodological quality, validity, and suitability for publication.

 

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript as a whole and provide specific comments that enable the authors and editor to understand the strengths, weaknesses, and necessary improvements. Recommendations to the editor should be consistent with the comments provided to the authors.

 

A manuscript does not need to be flawless to be publishable; however, its central research problem, design, evidence, analysis, and conclusions must be sufficiently rigorous and reliable.

 

Peer Review Form — Language Teaching Research Quarterly (LTRQ)

Manuscript ID: _______________

Manuscript Title: _______________

Date of Review: _______________

 

Peer Review Model: Internal in-house review by the handling editor (first stage) and double-blind external peer review (second stage for submissions passing the first stage)

This journal uses a double-blind peer review model. Neither the reviewers nor the authors know each other's identities. The editor knows all identities and will remove any identifiable information for both parties

 

Reviewer Declaration and Confidentiality Agreement Mandatory Statement — Please Read Carefully Before Completing This Review By accepting this review assignment, the reviewer acknowledges and agrees to the following terms: 1.      Confidentiality of the Manuscript: The manuscript, including all associated files, data, tables, figures, and supplementary materials, is confidential and proprietary to the authors and to Language Teaching Research Quarterly (LTRQ). The reviewer must not share, distribute, reproduce, or disclose any part of the manuscript to any third party without prior written consent from the editorial office. 2.      Prohibition on AI Use for Review: The reviewer must not upload, paste, input, or otherwise submit the manuscript—in whole or in part—into any artificial intelligence (AI) tool, platform, or service. This includes, but is not limited to, large language models (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot), AI-based text analyzers, AI detection tools, paraphrasing tools, summarization tools, or any other generative or automated system. Using AI to generate, assist with, or produce any portion of the peer review report is strictly prohibited. 3.      Prohibition on AI-Assisted Evaluation: The reviewer must not use AI tools to evaluate, analyze, summarize, paraphrase, or assess the manuscript's quality, novelty, methodology, findings, or any other aspect. All judgments, comments, and recommendations must be the reviewer's own independent scholarly assessment. 4.      No Retention or Reuse: The reviewer must not retain, store, or reuse the manuscript or any of its content for personal, professional, or commercial purposes. All files must be deleted or destroyed after the review is complete, unless otherwise instructed by the editorial office. 5.      Accountability: The reviewer accepts full responsibility for the content of their review. Any breach of these terms may result in the reviewer being removed from the journal's reviewer database and may incur further action as deemed appropriate by the editorial board. 6.      Conflict of Interest: The reviewer confirms that they have no conflict of interest that would compromise the integrity of this review. Any potential conflict must be disclosed to the editorial office immediately. 7.      Acknowledgment: By proceeding with this review, the reviewer confirms that they have read, understood, and agreed to abide by all the terms stated above. ☐ I have read, understood, and agreed to abide by all the terms stated in this Reviewer Agreement and Declaration.

 

Rating Scale for All Items:

1 = Strongly Disagree | 2 = Disagree | 3 = Neutral | 4 = Agree | 5 = Strongly Agree | NA = Not Applicable

 

Section 1: Aim, Scope, and Relevance to LTRQ

 

LTRQ publishes research within second/foreign language teaching, with emphasis on sound methodology and clear pedagogical implications. Suitable research may be qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods.

 

1.1 The manuscript is within the journal's stated scope.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

1.2 The manuscript's pedagogical implications are clear and meaningful for language teachers, testers, or learners.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

Section 2: Novelty and Contribution to the Field

 

The journal prioritizes submissions with significant innovative implications and contributions that advance language teaching research.

 

2.1 The manuscript addresses a gap in the existing literature.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

2.2 The research question is original or offers a fresh perspective on an existing topic.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

2.3 The study makes a clear contribution to theory, methodology, or practice in language teaching.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

Section 3: Literature Review

 

3.1 The literature review is comprehensive and up-to-date.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

3.2 The review critically synthesizes sources rather than merely summarizing them.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

3.3 Key concepts and theoretical frameworks are clearly defined and sourced.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

3.4 The review identifies gaps, controversies, or trends in the field.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

3.5 The review logically leads to the research questions or hypotheses.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

Section 4: Research Design and Methodology

 

The journal expects methodologically sound research with rigorous procedures. Replicability and ethical considerations are essential.

 

4.1 The research design is appropriate for the research questions.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

4.2 Participants/sampling procedures are clearly described and justified.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

4.3 Data collection instruments/procedures are described in sufficient detail for replication.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

4.4 Data analysis procedures are rigorous, transparent, and appropriate.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

4.5 Ethical considerations are addressed (IRB approval, informed consent, confidentiality).

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

4.6 Limitations of the design are acknowledged.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

4.7 For qualitative/mixed-methods: Trustworthiness criteria are addressed (credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability).

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

Section 5: Results

 

Results should be clearly presented and appropriately interpreted.

 

5.1 The findings are clearly and logically presented.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

5.2 Results are reported with sufficient detail (e.g., statistical values, effect sizes, or rich qualitative evidence).

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

5.3 Tables and figures are clear, informative, and necessary.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

5.4 The findings are responsive to the research questions.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

5.5 The interpretation of results is supported by the data.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

Section 6: Discussion and Conclusion

 

The discussion should link findings to the literature and clearly articulate implications.

 

6.1 The findings are discussed in relation to the existing literature.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

6.2 Conclusions are within the scope of the data presented.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

6.3 Theoretical and practical implications are clearly articulated.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

6.4 Limitations of the study are acknowledged.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

6.5 Future research directions are suggested.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

Section 7: Writing Quality and Clarity

 

7.1 The manuscript is well-organized and logically structured.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

7.2 The writing is clear, concise, and free of major grammatical errors.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

7.3 The academic tone is appropriate for the journal.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

7.4 Technical terms are used consistently and correctly.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

7.5 The abstract is an accurate and concise representation of the article.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

7.6 The title is appropriate, concise, and descriptive.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

7.7 There are 3-5 keywords that are specifically related to the main topic of the research.

Rating: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ NA ☐

Comments:

 

Section 8: Summary Evaluation

 

Please rate each criterion using the scale below:

1 = Very Poor | 2 = Poor | 3 = Acceptable | 4 = Good | 5 = Excellent

 

§  Scope and Relevance: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐

 

§  Novelty and Contribution: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐

 

§  Literature Review: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐

 

§  Research Design/Method: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐

 

§  Findings/Results: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐

 

§  Discussion/Conclusion: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐

 

§  APA 7th Compliance: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐

 

§  Writing Quality: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐

 

Section 9: Overall Recommendation and Comments

 

Recommendation: ☐ Accept ☐ Minor Revision ☐ Major Revision ☐ Reject

 

Specific Comments for Authors:

 

Comments to Editor (confidential):

 

By submitting this review, I confirm and agree to the following:

☐ I have completed this review independently and have not used any artificial intelligence (AI) tool, platform, or service—including but not limited to large language models (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot), AI-based text analyzers, AI detection tools, paraphrasing tools, summarization tools, or any other generative or automated system—to generate, assist with, or produce any portion of this review.

☐ I have not uploaded, pasted, input, or otherwise submitted the manuscript—in whole or in part—into any AI tool, platform, or service.

☐ I have not used AI to evaluate, analyze, summarize, paraphrase, or assess the manuscript's quality, novelty, methodology, findings, or any other aspect.

☐ I confirm that all judgments, comments, and recommendations in this review are my own independent scholarly assessment.

☐ I have treated the manuscript and all associated files as confidential and have not shared, distributed, reproduced, or disclosed any part of it to any third party.

☐ I have not retained, stored, or reused the manuscript or any of its content for personal, professional, or commercial purposes.

☐ I confirm that I have no conflict of interest that would compromise the integrity of this review, or I have disclosed any potential conflict to the editorial office.

☐ I accept full responsibility for the content of this review and understand that any breach of these terms may result in my removal from the journal's reviewer database and may incur further action as deemed appropriate by the editorial board.

☐ I have read, understood, and agreed to abide by all the terms stated in this Reviewer Agreement and Declaration.

 

Reviewer Signature (optional): _______________

 

Date: _______________

 

 

NOTE: This Section is completed by the journal editorial assistant.

Section 10: APA 7th Format and References and Journal Submission Guidelines

 

Manuscripts must conform to APA 7th edition for citations, references, and formatting.  

 

10.1 In-text citations are formatted correctly according to APA 7th edition.

Rating: Yes ☐ No ☐

10.2 The reference list is complete, accurate, and consistently formatted.

Rating: Yes ☐ No ☐

10.3 All in-text citations appear in the reference list (and vice versa).

Rating: Yes ☐ No ☐

10.4 Headings, tables, and figures are formatted according to APA 7th edition.

Rating: Yes ☐ No ☐

10.5 The manuscript is free of significant APA formatting inconsistencies.

Rating: Yes ☐ No ☐

10.6 The manuscript includes funding statement.

Rating: Yes ☐ No ☐

10.7 The manuscript includes CRediT authorship contribution statement.

Rating: Yes ☐ No ☐

10.8 The manuscript includes Generative AI use disclosure statement.

Rating: Yes ☐ No ☐

10.9 The manuscript includes ethics declarations (institutional review board approval, informed consent, and participant confidentiality procedures).

Rating: Yes ☐ No ☐

10.10 The manuscript includes competing interests.

Rating: Yes ☐ No ☐

10.11 The manuscript includes data availability.

Rating: Yes ☐ No ☐

 

Comments: