clt-international

ISSN Number

 2708-9517

Abstracting/Indexing/Listing

MLA International Bibliography

MLA Directory of Periodicals

Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)

QOAM (Quality Open Access Market)

REAO: East Asian Studies Journals

EBSCO Education

ICI World of Journals

ICI Journals Master List

Index Copernicus

ProQuest

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

CNKI Scholar

Crossref

Publons

Gale-Cengage

ROAD

BASE

Baidu Scholar

OpenAIRE

WorldlCat

J-gate

Peer Review Policy

All IJCLT publications have been through rigorous peer review, and their quality have been assessed by independent peers within the field. IJCLT enforces “double blind” reviewing, in which the referees and the authors remain anonymous to each other. The handling editors conduct a preliminary review of all submitted manuscripts and only those that meet the minimum criteria will be passed on to at least two expert referees for formal reviewing.
 

Whenever possible, referees are matched to the manuscript according to their expertise. Referees are asked to provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript:

  • Context: Is the context of research explicitly and fully explained?
  • Originality and significance: Is it original as to thought and method (including data)? Does it clearly add to the knowledge and development of the field?
  • Data and methodology: Is it methodologically sound? Is the reporting of data and methodology sufficiently detailed and transparent?
  • Results: Are results clearly presented? Is there appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties?
  • Conclusions: Are conclusions and data interpretation robust, valid and reliable?
  • References: Does it correctly and exhaustively reference previous relevant work?
  • Ethics: Does it follow appropriate ethical guidelines?

 

The handling editors then make a decision based on the reviewers' advice, from among several possibilities:

  • Accept upon minor revisions
  • Accept upon major revisions
  • Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission
  • Reject outright, typically on grounds of lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical problems

 

The time required for the review process depends on the response of the referees. The typical time for the first round of the refereeing process is approximately 4-6 weeks, with a maximum of three months.


A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with the recommendations made by the referees.