ELLITE: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching guarantees that all research articles, theoretical analyses, and pedagogical studies published in the journal undergo a rigorous, fair, unbiased, and timely peer-review process. In strict compliance with Point 3 (Peer Review Process) of the COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, all of the journal's content is subjected to independent scrutiny by qualified experts, and the specific review procedures and policies are transparently described on this page. Furthermore, our entire editorial evaluation workflow is governed by the COPE Core Principles and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers to uphold scholarly validity, originality, and academic integrity without promising guaranteed acceptance or artificially short review times.

1. Stage 1: Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Evaluation) & Plagiarism Check

Every manuscript submitted to ELLITE through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform first undergoes an initial desk evaluation conducted by the Editor-in-Chief and/or a designated Section Editor within 1 to 2 weeks of submission. In alignment with COPE's Short Guide to Ethical Editing and COPE's Core Practice on Journal Management, the editorial team assesses whether the manuscript: (a) aligns with the journal's disciplinary Focus and Scope (English Language, Linguistics, Literature, and English Language Teaching); (b) adheres to the journal's formatting template and structural guidelines; (c) demonstrates sufficient academic English proficiency and methodological soundness; and (d) complies with ethical oversight requirements for human subjects per COPE's Guidelines on Ethical Oversight. Concurrently, all submissions are screened for textual similarity using Turnitin/iThenticate software; manuscripts exhibiting excessive similarity or suspected plagiarism are handled and rejected immediately in accordance with COPE's Framework on Allegations of Misconduct and COPE's Standards on Duplicate and Redundant Submission. Manuscripts that fail to meet these initial threshold criteria are desk-rejected ("Decline Submission" or "Resubmit Elsewhere") without external review so authors may promptly submit their work to a more suitable venue.

2. Stage 2: Double-Blind (Double-Anonymised) Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial desk screening are assigned to at least two (2) independent peer reviewers who hold relevant academic expertise in English linguistics, literature, or pedagogy. ELLITE strictly employs a double-blind (double-anonymised) peer-review system, wherein the identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain strictly concealed from each other throughout the entire review cycle, adhering to COPE's Anonymised Peer Review Standards and COPE's Guidance on Reviewer Anonymity and Rights. Before accepting an invitation, prospective referees must verify their subject-matter competence, confirm their availability to complete the evaluation within 2 to 4 weeks, and declare any competing interests by following COPE's Flowchart on What to Consider When Asked to Peer Review a Manuscript. During the review process, manuscripts are treated as privileged, confidential documents; in strict compliance with COPE's Discussion Document on Peer Review Confidentiality and the COPE Position Statement on AI Tools, reviewers are strictly prohibited from sharing manuscripts with third parties or uploading any portion of a manuscript into Generative AI tools or Large Language Models.

3. Stage 3: Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decision-Making

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript's originality, theoretical grounding, methodological rigor, analytical depth, and citation integrity based on the COPE Official Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. To ensure constructive and respectful scholarly discourse, the Section Editor reviews all referee reports prior to forwarding them to the author and reserves the right to redact hostile, defamatory, or biased remarks in accordance with COPE's Guidelines on Editing Peer Reviews, while also preventing coercive self-citation requests as outlined in COPE's Discussion Document on Citation Manipulation. Based on the reviewers' evaluations, the Editor records one of the following editorial decisions in OJS:

In instances where the two independent reviewers provide sharply conflicting recommendations (e.g., one recommends "Accept Submission" and the other recommends "Decline Submission"), the Editor-in-Chief or handling Section Editor will either appoint a third independent adjudicating reviewer or conduct a thorough substantive evaluation to reach a fair final decision, strictly adhering to the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. Final authority for the acceptance or rejection of any manuscript rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief.

4. Stage 4: Author Revisions, Acceptance, Copyediting, and Production

When revisions are requested, authors must upload their revised manuscript (with changes highlighted) along with a point-by-point response letter addressing every comment raised by the reviewers and the editor within the stipulated deadline. If an author fails to submit revisions within the allotted timeframe without requesting an extension, the submission may be archived; conversely, authors are not permitted to unilaterally withdraw a manuscript while it is actively undergoing peer review or at the post-acceptance proof stage without formal editorial approval, in compliance with COPE's Guidance on Withdrawal of Papers at the Proof Stage. Once the Editor-in-Chief is satisfied that all scholarly revisions have been thoroughly addressed, the formal Letter of Acceptance (LoA) is issued, and the manuscript proceeds to professional copyediting, layout typesetting, galley proof verification by the Corresponding Author, and Crossref DOI assignment in accordance with COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Publishing and Quality Control. The entire peer-review and editorial cycle from initial submission to final decision typically takes 6 to 12 weeks.

5. Handling Submissions from Editors, Board Members, and Institutional Affiliates

To prevent institutional bias and safeguard the objectivity of the peer-review process, any manuscript submitted to ELLITE in which the Editor-in-Chief, a Section Editor, an Editorial Board member, or a faculty member of Universitas Muhammadiyah Jember is listed as an author or co-author is subjected to strict conflict-of-interest walls as mandated by COPE's Policy on Editorial and Institutional Conflicts of Interest. The conflicted editor or board member is completely recused from accessing the manuscript's peer-review records in OJS, and the submission is assigned to an independent alternate Editor and evaluated via double-blind review by at least two external reviewers unaffiliated with the author's institution, following the exact safeguards in COPE's Ethical Editing Standards for Editor Submissions.

6. Safeguards Against Peer Review Manipulation, Appeals, and Post-Publication Review

ELLITE actively monitors its OJS submission and review system to prevent any attempt to manipulate or compromise the peer-review process, such as suggesting fabricated reviewer accounts, impersonating referees, or engaging in peer-review rings. If peer-review manipulation is suspected before or after publication, the Editorial Board will halt processing or investigate the published article strictly following COPE's Flowchart on How to Recognise Potential Manipulation of the Peer Review Process and COPE's Flowchart on What to Do If You Suspect Peer Review Manipulation, which may result in rejection or formal retraction under the COPE Retraction Guidelines. Authors who wish to appeal an editorial rejection based on concrete evidence of factual misunderstanding or procedural bias in a peer-review report may submit a formal written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, which will be reviewed objectively by an uninvolved Editor in alignment with the COPE Code of Conduct. Furthermore, ELLITE welcomes constructive post-publication scholarly commentary and resolves any post-publication methodological or ethical critiques through transparent editorial investigations in accordance with COPE's Core Practices on Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections.