Publication Ethics

The International Journal of Research on English Teaching and Applied Linguistics, referred to below as IJRETAL, is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all reasonable measures against publication malpractice in any form. The Editorial Board is responsible for preventing publication malpractice, and unethical behaviour is not tolerated.

Authors who submit to IJRETAL affirm that the content of the manuscript is original, that it has not been published previously in any language either wholly or in part, and that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Editors, authors, and reviewers working with IJRETAL are expected to be fully committed to good publication practice and to accept the duties set out below.

The journal follows the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), published at https://publicationethics.org, and applies the COPE flowcharts when handling suspected misconduct. COPE guidance is revised from time to time, and the Editorial Board reviews this statement whenever a revision is issued so that the journal is never bound to a framework that has been withdrawn.

Publication and Authorship

All submitted papers are subject to a rigorous peer review process conducted by at least two reviewers who are experts in the area of the paper.
The review model is double blind.
The factors taken into account in review are relevance to the scope, theoretical soundness, methodological rigour, significance and originality of the contribution, ethical conduct of the research, readability, and quality of the language.
The possible decisions are acceptance, acceptance subject to revision, major revision with a further round of review, and rejection.
Where authors are invited to revise and resubmit, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
A rejected manuscript is not reviewed again unless an appeal is upheld under the Complaints and Appeals policy.
Acceptance is subject to the legal requirements in force concerning defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
The same study must not be published in more than one journal, and a manuscript that divides a single study into several thin publications will be declined.

Responsibilities of Authors

Authors must certify that the manuscript is their own original work.
Authors must certify that the manuscript has not been published previously elsewhere.
Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently under consideration for publication elsewhere.
Authors must participate in the peer review process and respond to editorial correspondence within the stated deadlines.
Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections when errors are identified.
Every author named in the paper must have made a substantial contribution to the research, and all named authors must have approved the submitted version.
Authors must confirm that all data reported in the paper are genuine and authentic, and must retain the raw data for at least five years after publication.
Authors must disclose to the editors any conflict of interest, whether financial, professional, or personal.
Authors must identify all sources used in the preparation of the manuscript and must obtain permission for any third party material reproduced.
Authors must disclose any use of generative artificial intelligence in the preparation of the manuscript, as set out in the policy on generative artificial intelligence.
Authors must report to the editors any error they discover in their published paper.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must keep all information concerning a manuscript confidential and must treat it as privileged. A manuscript under review must not be shared, quoted, or used to advance the reviewer's own work.
Reviews must be conducted objectively, and personal criticism of the author is not acceptable.
Reviewers must express their views clearly and support each judgement with reasons that the author can act on.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited, but must not require citation of the reviewer's own work in order to increase its citation count.
Reviewers must alert the Editor in Chief to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work of which they have personal knowledge.
Reviewers must decline to review a manuscript where a conflict of interest arises from competition, collaboration, supervision, institutional affiliation, or any other relationship with the authors or their institutions.
Reviewers must not use generative artificial intelligence to produce a review report or to process the manuscript, since uploading a manuscript to an external tool breaches confidentiality.
Reviewers who cannot meet the agreed deadline must inform the Editorial Office promptly so that the manuscript can be reassigned.

Responsibilities of Editors

Editors have full responsibility and authority to accept or reject a manuscript.
Editors are responsible for the content and the overall quality of the publication.
Editors should consider the needs of authors and readers when seeking to improve the journal.
Editors must safeguard the quality of the papers published and the integrity of the scholarly record.
Editors must publish corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern when these are needed.
Editors should have a clear picture of the funding sources of the research they publish.
Editors must base their decisions solely on the importance, originality, clarity, methodological soundness, and relevance of the paper to the scope of the journal, without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, institutional affiliation, or political outlook of the authors.
Editors should not reverse their own decisions, or overturn those of a previous editor, without serious reason.
Editors must preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
Editors must ensure that all research they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
Editors should accept a paper only when they are reasonably certain of its soundness.
Editors must act on any suspicion of misconduct, whether the paper is published or unpublished, and must make all reasonable efforts to obtain a resolution. Editors must not reject a paper on suspicion alone, and must establish evidence of misconduct before acting.
Editors must not allow a conflict of interest to arise between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members.

Handling of Alleged Misconduct

Where an allegation of misconduct is made, whether by a reader, a reviewer, or a member of the Editorial Board, the Editor in Chief follows the relevant COPE flowchart. The corresponding author is informed of the allegation and is given a reasonable opportunity to respond before any decision is taken. Where the matter is not resolved, the Editorial Office may contact the institution of the author. Confirmed misconduct may lead to rejection of the manuscript, retraction of a published article, notification of the author's institution, and refusal to consider further submissions from the authors concerned for a defined period.