LTIF Submission Categories, Structures & Word Limits

Language Testing in Focus: An International Journal (LTIF) has introduced a set of updated and newly expanded submission categories that reflect the growing complexity of language testing and assessment in both local and international contexts. As language education systems evolve and multilingual realities become more prominent, assessment practices must address a widening range of pedagogical, sociocultural, technological, and policy-related considerations.

These revised categories aim to capture this diversity by providing clearer pathways for empirical research, theoretical innovation, applied practice, and policy-focused contributions. They also acknowledge the rapid developments in assessment technologies, the importance of contextualised classroom-based assessment, and the global challenges and opportunities shaping language testing and assessment today. Together, these categories invite submissions that respond to the dynamic and interconnected realities of contemporary language assessment. All categories are peer reviewed.

1.        Empirical Research Articles

Rationale/Scope

Empirical Research Articles present original, methodologically rigorous investigations that contribute substantively to the field of second, foreign, or additional language testing and assessment. These articles advance theoretical understanding, improve assessment practice, or offer evidence-based insights into test development, validation, scoring, rating processes, classroom assessment, and policy-relevant assessment issues. Submissions should be grounded in a clear research gap, employ appropriate research designs, and demonstrate analytical depth and interpretive clarity.

This category welcomes a wide range of empirical approaches, including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed‑methods studies, as well as research drawing on psychometrics, measurement theory, educational data analytics, classroom-based assessment, and technology-supported assessment contexts. Studies may investigate test constructs, performance features, rater behaviour, test-taker processes, fairness and equity issues, washback or impact, argument-based validation, and the role of assessment in multilingual or culturally diverse contexts.

In addition to original studies, this category explicitly includes replication studies, either direct or conceptual. Replication work is essential for strengthening the cumulative knowledge base of the field, testing the robustness of influential findings, and enhancing transparency and reliability across diverse educational, linguistic, and regional settings. Replication studies must clearly articulate their rationale, build on prior published work, and discuss similarities and differences in outcomes with appropriate methodological precision.

Empirical Research Articles should aim not only to report high-quality research but also to demonstrate the practical, theoretical, or policy implications of findings for language testers, teachers, learners, program administrators, and assessment bodies locally and internationally.

Word limit

9000 words (including abstract, references, tables, appendices).

Structure

·         Title

·         Abstract (150–200 words)

·         Keywords (3–6)

·         Introduction

·         Literature Review

·         Methods

·         Results

·         Discussion

·         Conclusion

·         References

·         Appendices (optional)

2.       Research Syntheses & Review Articles

Rationale/Scope

Research Syntheses and Review Articles provide systematic, critical, and integrative examinations of published scholarship in areas relevant to second, foreign, or additional language testing and assessment. These contributions play a crucial role in consolidating knowledge, identifying theoretical and methodological advances, and mapping emerging or underexplored areas within the field. They support the development of evidence-based practices and offer conceptual clarity by drawing together diverse studies across international and local assessment contexts.

This category welcomes a broad range of review types, including narrative literature reviews, systematic reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analyses, and scientometric or bibliometric reviews, consistent with LTIF’s existing remit for theoretical and methodological review work

Submissions should articulate a clear rationale for the type of review selected, outline rigorous search and inclusion criteria, and transparently report the analytical approach used to synthesise findings.

Authors are encouraged to highlight trends in research designs, analytical techniques, constructs tested, validation practices, assessment technologies, equity considerations, and contextual factors that shape assessment practices globally. Reviews should not merely summarise studies; they must provide critical evaluation, identify gaps and inconsistencies, and propose future research directions that meaningfully advance theory, methodology, or practice.

Word limit

5,000–7,000 words

Structure

·         Title

·         Abstract (150–200 words)

·         Keywords (3–6)

·         Introduction

·         Review Method / Search Protocol

·         Thematic or Methodological Synthesis

·         Critical Evaluation

·         Implications & Future Directions

·         Conclusion

·         References

·         Appendices (optional)

3.       Theoretical & Conceptual Articles

Rationale/Scope

Theoretical and Conceptual Articles offer original, analytically robust contributions that advance foundational understanding in second, foreign, or additional language testing and assessment. These articles develop, refine, or critically interrogate theories, models, constructs, and conceptual frameworks, drawing on relevant and up-to-date literature that shapes how assessment is designed, interpreted, and used across diverse educational, professional, and sociocultural contexts. As LTIF encourages submissions that address theoretical or methodological issues central to the field

This category provides a clear venue for scholarship that strengthens conceptual clarity and deepens the intellectual foundations of language assessment.

Submissions may introduce new constructs, revisit or refine existing ones, propose updated validity or fairness frameworks, engage critically with measurement or assessment theories, or conceptualise emergent phenomena such as translanguaging, multilingual assessment practices, or technology-mediated test constructs. Authors may also explore philosophical, socio-cognitive, ethical, or policy-oriented dimensions of assessment that influence how language ability is defined, operationalised, and evaluated in local and international settings.

Theoretical and Conceptual Articles should present a well-articulated argument supported by relevant literature, offer insightful analysis of the implications for assessment design and interpretation, and outline how the proposed conceptual advancement contributes to future empirical inquiry or practical assessment development. These articles do not require empirical data, but they must demonstrate intellectual rigour, coherence, and relevance to contemporary issues in language testing and assessment.

Word limit

5,000 words

Structure

·         Title

·         Abstract (150–200 words)

·         Keywords (3–6)

·         Introduction

·         Theoretical Background

·         Core Argument / Conceptual Model

·         Illustrative Example (optional)

·         Implications for Language Assessment

·         Conclusion

·         References

·         Appendices (optional)

4.      Research Methods & Instrumentation Articles

Rationale/Scope

Research Methods & Instrumentation Articles provide focused, analytically robust contributions that advance methodological practices and technical tools used in language testing and assessment research. This category is designed for studies that introduce, refine, or critically evaluate research methods, measurement techniques, analytic procedures, or assessment instruments that support high-quality empirical inquiry in the field. Such contributions help strengthen the methodological foundations of language testing and assessment and ensure that research practices remain transparent, rigorous, and responsive to complex and evolving assessment contexts.

Submissions may present newly developed instruments—such as rating scales, task types, coding frameworks, or observation protocols—or introduce methodological innovations in areas including experimental design, rater analysis, discourse or process‑oriented assessment measures, corpus‑based approaches, technology‑enhanced data collection, or advanced statistical and psychometric modelling (e.g., Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analyses, structural equation modeling, diagnostic modelling).

Submissions in this category should explain the theoretical rationale underpinning the method or instrument, detail its development or adaptation, and provide evidence of its reliability, validity, or practical utility. Although full empirical validation is not required, submissions must include sufficient demonstration, such as pilot data, simulations, worked examples, or illustrative applications, to show how the method or instrument functions and how it can be applied by researchers or practitioners in diverse assessment contexts.

Research Methods & Instrumentation Articles should offer clear guidance for use, discuss potential limitations, and highlight how the method or tool enhances analytical precision, interpretive depth, or practical implementation in language assessment research. These contributions serve as valuable resources for researchers, test developers, and educators seeking robust, innovative, and replicable methodological approaches.

Word limit

4,000–5,000 words

Structure

·         Title

·         Abstract (150–200 words)

·         Keywords (3–6)

·         Introduction

·         Description of Method/Instrument

·         Theoretical Rationale

·         Pilot Evidence / Illustration

·         Strengths, Limitations & Applications

·         Conclusion

·         References

·         Appendices (optional)

5.       Assessment Innovations or Technology Reports

Rationale/Scope

Assessment Innovations & Technology Reports present focused, practice-oriented, or technically grounded accounts of emerging tools, platforms, and digital processes shaping contemporary language testing and assessment. This category is intended for contributions that document and critically describe and evaluate innovations without requiring full-scale empirical validation. Submissions may address advancements in automated scoring, Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) supported feedback systems, speech and writing analytics, computer‑adaptive testing, digital task delivery, remote proctoring, or other assessment-related technologies.

Papers in this category should articulate the assessment problem or need that the innovation addresses, provide a clear description of the technology or system, and demonstrate its potential value through illustrative examples, pilot implementations, or design‑based insights. Authors are encouraged to discuss considerations such as usability, accessibility, fairness, security, and ethical implications, particularly when technologies are applied across diverse local and international testing contexts.

While these reports focus on innovation rather than exhaustive empirical evidence, they must present sufficient detail to allow readers to understand how the technology operates, how it can be integrated into assessment practice, and what limitations or challenges may accompany its adoption. Submissions should highlight the practical implications for researchers, practitioners, and test developers, and indicate how the innovation may influence future developments in language assessment.

Word limit

3,000–4,000 words

Structure

·         Title

·         Abstract (150–200 words)

·         Keywords (3–6)

·         Introduction / Context

·         Description of Innovation

·         Application / Pilot Use

·         Practical & Ethical Considerations

·         Conclusion

·         References

·         Appendices (optional)

6.      Practice-Oriented Briefs (Assessment in Action)

Rationale/Scope

Practice-Oriented Briefs provide concise, context-rich accounts of assessment practices implemented in real educational, workplace, or community language learning environments. These contributions highlight how assessment principles, tools, policies, and innovations are applied in authentic settings, and how practitioners respond to practical challenges, thereby informing broader assessment theory and practice.

This category is designed for teachers, test developers, program coordinators, and assessment practitioners who wish to document classroom-based assessment strategies, program-level assessment initiatives, case studies of test use, or context-specific adaptations of assessment approaches. Submissions should clearly describe the setting, the assessment problem or goal, the instructional or institutional constraints, and the rationale for the chosen assessment practices. Authors are encouraged to present practical insights, reflections, or lessons learned that offer value to practitioners working in comparable contexts.

Unlike empirical research articles, Practice-Oriented Briefs do not require full data sets or extensive statistical analysis. However, they must still provide sufficient detail to demonstrate the relevance, coherence, and potential applicability of the practice described. Authors may include illustrative examples, small-scale observations, teacher or learner feedback, or implementation outcomes that help readers understand the practical consequences of the assessment approach.

These briefs should ultimately connect practice to broader issues in language assessment by articulating implications for teaching, learning, assessment literacy, or program improvement. They serve as accessible, practice-focused contributions that support knowledge sharing across diverse local and international contexts.

Word limit

2,000–3,000 words

Structure

·         Title

·         Abstract (150–200 words)

·         Keywords (3–6)

·         Introduction

·         Context

·         Assessment Issue / Innovation

·         Implementation

·         Outcomes / Reflections

·         Implications

·         References

·         Appendices (optional)

7.       Policy & Impact Briefs

Rationale/Scope

Policy & Impact Briefs offer concise, analytically grounded discussions of policy developments, assessment reforms, and consequential outcomes associated with language testing and assessment in local, national, or international contexts. These contributions focus on how assessment policies are conceptualised, implemented, and experienced by stakeholders, and how they shape educational practices, opportunities, and equity within diverse language learning environments.

Submissions in this category may examine the design, use, or revision of assessment frameworks; the impact of high-stakes testing on teaching and learning; issues of access, fairness, and accountability; or the alignment—or misalignment—between assessment policy and classroom realities. Authors may also analyse how assessment policies influence curriculum, teacher professional learning, resource allocation, or learner pathways, as well as how sociopolitical, cultural, or institutional factors mediate policy interpretation and implementation.

Policy & Impact Briefs do not require full empirical datasets; however, arguments must be supported by coherent reasoning, evidence-informed analysis, or illustrative examples drawn from practice, policy documents, or stakeholder experiences. Submissions should provide clear insights into the consequences of assessment decisions, highlight areas of tension or opportunity, and offer practical, research-informed recommendations for policymakers, educators, and assessment leaders.

The primary goal of this category is to foreground the real-world implications of language assessment and to promote informed, context-sensitive dialogue that can guide more equitable and effective assessment policy and practice across varied educational systems.

Word limit

3,000–4,000 words

Structure

·         Title

·         Abstract (150–200 words)

·         Keywords (3–6)

·         Introduction

·         Policy Context

·         Issue Definition

·         Evidence-Based Analysis

·         Stakeholder Impact

·         Recommendations

·         References

·         Appendices (optional)

8.      Test or Assessment Reviews

Rationale/Scope

Test and Assessment Reviews provide concise, analytically grounded evaluations of language tests or assessments used in educational, professional, or high-stakes contexts. This category is intended for contributions that critically examine the design, purpose, structure, and use of specific language tests, with the aim of informing researchers, practitioners, and policymakers about their strengths, limitations, and suitability for particular contexts.

Submissions should offer a clear description of the test’s intended construct, target population, task types, scoring procedures, and operational features. Authors are expected to engage critically with aspects such as validity argumentation, reliability evidence, fairness considerations, test delivery modes, accessibility, and practicality. Where applicable, reviews may also comment on test preparation materials, washback effects, or the alignment between the test’s claims and its actual performance demands.

Test and Assessment Reviews do not require empirical data collection; however, evaluations must be grounded in well-reasoned analysis, supported by relevant documentation, publicly available test specifications, or theoretically informed critique. Reviews should avoid overly descriptive summaries and instead prioritise analytical insights that highlight how the test functions, how effectively it measures its intended constructs, and how well it meets its stakeholders’ needs.

The purpose of this category is to promote transparency, encourage informed decision-making among test users, and support ongoing improvement in assessment quality across diverse local and international contexts.

Word limit

2,500–3,000 words

Structure

·         Title

·         Introduction & Purpose

·         Test Description

·         Evaluation (validity, reliability, fairness, practicality)

·         Strengths & Weaknesses

·         Implications

·         Conclusion

·         References

·         Appendices (optional)

9.      Book or Resource Reviews

Rationale/Scope

Book or Resource Reviews provide concise, critically informed evaluations of current or recent publications and materials relevant to language testing and assessment. This category includes reviews of scholarly books, edited volumes, methodological handbooks, digital resources, assessment tools, and practitioner-oriented materials that contribute to ongoing developments in the field.

Reviews should do more than summarise content. Authors are expected to offer an analytical perspective that situates the book or resource within existing scholarship or practice, assessing its originality, theoretical grounding, methodological contribution, and practical relevance. Submissions should highlight the strengths of the work, identify any limitations or gaps, and comment on its value for researchers, educators, practitioners, policymakers, or assessment developers.

To maintain the journal’s currency and relevance, reviews must focus on materials published recently or updated within the past few years. Authors should justify the timeliness of the resource and explain how it responds to contemporary issues, innovations, or debates in language assessment.

Book or Resource Reviews do not require empirical evidence, but they must demonstrate balance, clarity, and critical insight. The goal is to inform readers about noteworthy contributions to the field and to guide them in selecting high-quality resources that support research, teaching, and assessment practice across diverse local and international contexts.

Word limit

2,000 to 2500 words

Structure

·         Full bibliographic citation

·         Brief overview

·         Critical evaluation

·         Comparison with existing literature

·         Strengths & weaknesses

·         Recommendation

·         References

·         Appendices (optional)

 

 Peer Review Policy

Reviewing Language Testing in Focus: an International Journal (LTIF) occurs in two stages. All manuscripts are first reviewed by the editor-in-chief and assigned associate editors to determine their alignment with the journal's aim and scope and suitability for external review. Submitted manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review process conducted by a minimum of two reviewers. The final editorial decision – whether acceptance, acceptance with major or minor revisions, or rejection – is typically made within 6-8 weeks (median) of submission. The editor's decision is conclusive and cannot be negotiated.

 

We do not have fast-tracking review and publication option. All papers should pass the defined review procedure. Final editorial decision on acceptance, acceptance with major or minor revisions, or rejection is generally reached within 6-8 weeks after submission. The editor's decision is final and is not negotiable.

 

Plagiarism

Language Testing in Focus: an International Journal (LTIF) takes issues of plagiarism and copyright infringement seriously. All submissions are checked with software for two purposes:

 

Similarity Index

The major plagiarised submissions (+ 60% similarity index) are desk rejected and the author is not allowed to submit any manuscript for three years. Minor and major revised submissions are checked by software at different stages of review, editing, and publication (the acceptable rate for similarity index is -15%).

 

AI Detection:

The submissions are checked for any potential AI usage.  The acceptable rate for AI use is -20%.

 

Generative AI Disclosure

 

Based on the journal’s updated policies, generative AI use should be declared precisely by authors based on APA journals policy on generative AI (November 2023), in particular, the updated policy published on August 2025:

 

APA Journals policy on generative AI

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/resources/publishing-tips/policy-generative-ai

 

Authors need to disclose completely any generative AI use in their manuscript when they submit their research to LTIF based on the below framework, in addition to the general exploratory statement on their cover letter based on the journal’s updated template for publication:

 

Generative AI disclosure framework on what to disclose and where in submissions

Generative AI Use	How to Disclose	Similar Principle
Generate a resource list on a topic to inform your literature review, metasynthesis, meta-analysis, or similar	In the introduction section, including your prompts, keywords, and AI used. (Preserve the output in case of inquiry)	Listing databases queried with what keywords and filters were used when describing literature search strategy for a literature review, metasynthesis, or meta-analysis
Translate text included in the manuscript or implement extensive copyediting (more than you’d traditionally find in Microsoft Word and similar tools)	In a general note in the author note, including the tool used	Similar to the Writing – Review and Editing CRediT role, only generative AI may not be listed as an author
Create or refine code	In the Method section, including the tool used and number of iterations (preserve the output in case of inquiry)	Describing the statistical package used in analysis, such as R or SPSS
Analyze, refine, format, or visualize data	In the Method section, including the tool used and number of iterations (preserve the output in case of inquiry)	Describing the statistical package and visualization tools used in analysis, such as R or SPSS
Write or draft manuscript content, including literature summaries and outlines	In the introduction section, including your prompts and tool used
Create or edit figures, tables, and/or images	In the section where the figures, tables, and/or images appear (e.g., Results section), including your prompts and tool used (preserve the output in case of inquiry)
Create or edit research design elements, data, or results	In the Method section (preserve the output in case of inquiry)

Source: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/resources/publishing-tips/policy-generative-ai

 

Consequences of Misuse

 

If authors do not follow these guidelines, their submission will be rejected and no resubmission is allowed for this infringement.

EUROKD, as publisher of LTIF, enjoys the right to retract any paper even after publication when a serious issue is found in this regard. Notably, publisher may take steps to contact the authors’ affiliated universities and institution in line with the international and national policies and regulations regarding infringement of code of ethics and research malpractice.

 

 Authorship

Please note that No Change is made in contributing authors’ order or name after original submission. Email address, ORCID, and affiliation of all authors should be included in the original submission. 

 

CRediT Author Statement

LTIF strives to enhance transparency and integrity in authors’ roles, contributions, and responsibilities in their research projects submitted to LTIF. Hence, all author(s) need to specify their role in their research based on the CRediT framework (https://www.niso.org/publications/z39104-2022-credit). CRediT statements should be provided on the first page of submission file, which is cover letter:

 

CRediT Taxonomy:

 

Contributor Roles

§  Conceptualization

§  Data curation

§  Formal analysis

§  Funding acquisition

§  Investigation

§  Methodology

§  Project administration

§  Resources

§  Software

§  Supervision

§  Validation

§  Visualization

§  Writing – original draft

§  Writing – review & editing

 

Conceptualization – Ideas; formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims.

Data curation – Management activities to annotate (produce metadata), scrub data and maintain research data (including software code, where it is necessary for interpreting the data itself) for initial use and later re-use.

Formal analysis – Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data.

Funding acquisition - Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication.

Investigation – Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection.

Methodology – Development or design of methodology; creation of models. Project administration – Management and coordination responsibility for the research activity planning and execution.

Resources – Provision of study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing resources, or other analysis tools.

Software – Programming, software development; designing computer programs; implementation of the computer code and supporting algorithms; testing of existing code components.

Supervision – Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team.

Validation – Verification, whether as a part of the activity or separate, of the overall replication/reproducibility of results/experiments and other research outputs.

Visualization – Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/data presentation.

Writing – original draft – Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft (including substantive translation).

Writing – review & editing – Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically critical review, commentary or revision – including pre- or post-publication stages.

Source: https://www.niso.org/publications/z39104-2022-credit

Brand, A., Allen, L., Altman, M., Hlava, M., & Scott, J. (2015). Beyond authorship: Attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. Learned Publishing, 28(2), 151–155. https://doi.org/10.1087/20150211

 

World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Participants

Authors need to state adherence to the World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki, the ethical principles to conduct any medical research involving human participants.

Authors are required to explain any procedure in which they recruited human participants in their research. They should report the details in the Study, Method, and Participants sections. For instance, the written free and informed consent of all participants should be obtained before the research starts based on the requirements of WMA. This information ought to be provided in the paper completely. In addition, adherence to the World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki should be stated in the cover letter of the submission. This statement will be published in the accepted paper too.

 

The full information about World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Participants is provided at the journal website (Click here for guidelines).

 

How to submit your manuscript

Language Testing in Focus: an International Journal (LTIF) adheres strictly to APA 7th Edition. The manuscript should not normally exceed 9000 words including abstract, tables, figures, and references (manuscripts exceeding the word limit should come with reasons for this and need to be discussed with the editor-in-chief prior to submission). The acceptable format for submissions is a Word document (DOC). All manuscripts must be submitted online through the publisher's submission system, which requires signing up. Alternatively, submissions can also be sent to ltifsubmissions@gmail.com.

You need to submit one office word file including:

- First Page: Cover Letter:

Please submit a cover letter confirming and mentioning:

• Manuscript's title name, affiliation, country, ORCID, and mailing address of all authors
• The manuscript is not under review by another journal.
• Length of manuscript (including references)
• The manuscript has been formatted according to the APA 7th Edition (DOIs have been included in the reference list).
• Acknowledgements
• Funding
• Generative AI Disclosure Statement
• CRediT Author Statement
• World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Participants 
• Competing Interests
• Data Availability
• The author(s) have studied and agreed with the APC of the journal.

-  Second Page: Title page:

a separate title page with author name(s), affiliations, country, and ORCID. 

- Third Page:  The Full Paper

From the third page, authors should put title, abstract (150-200 words), 3-5 keywords, the main text, and references.

Submission Format

• Submissions need to be formatted based on APA 7th Edition:
• Paper format (Click here for guidelines)
• Tables and figures (Click here for guidelines)
• In-text citations (Click here for guidelines)
• References (Click here for guidelines), you need to add the available DOIs.
• Mechanics of style (Click here for guidelines)
• Grammar (Click here for guidelines)

 

Acknowledgements

Any acknowledgements should appear at the end of your article, followed by declaration of conflicting interests and funding (if applicable) prior to references. 

 

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Authors need to declare any conflicting interests at the end of manuscript prior to references.

 

Funding Acknowledgement

All Authors need to acknowledge the funding with sufficient details at the end of manuscript prior to references. If there is no funding, you need to add a note at the end of manuscript prior to references: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. 

 

 

After acceptance   

Journal contributor’s publishing agreement  

Before publication, Language Testing in Focus: An International Journal (LTIF) requires the author as the rights holder to sign a Journal Contributor’s Publishing Agreement. The Journal Contributor’s Publishing Agreement is an exclusive license agreement which means that the author retains copyright in work but grants the journal the sole and exclusive right and license to publish for the full legal term of copyright.

      

Proofs

The corresponding author receives the galley proof file prior to publication. Once this stage is completed, no further edits can be made, as the journal does not issue erratum.

 

Publication

After receiving the final galley proof confirmed by the corresponding author, the paper is published online.

 

Open-access Policy

Like all articles published in EUROKD journals, papers published in Language Testing in Focus: An International Journal (LTIF) are fully open access.

 

 

If authors have any question with respect to the submission, they can contact the journal secretariat office:

Nazli atalar

ltifsubmissions@gmail.com

 

If authors have any question with respect to the production, they can contact the production team:

 

Yasin Demirci 

production@EUROKD.com