Submissions

Copyright Notice

This is an open-access article licensed under the terms of the under Creative Commons BY-NC 4.0, which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
The articles can be freely shared (copied and redistributed) in any medium or format only for non-commercial purposes. Proper credit must be given, a link to the license provided, and any changes indicated. Legal terms or technological measures that restrict others from exercising the rights granted by the license are prohibited. The rights granted are irrevocable, provided that the license terms are followed.

Refereeing Process

Peer review constitutes a crucial component of the publication process, playing a pivotal role in upholding JBILT's commitment to maintaining the utmost quality standards for its published papers. Every manuscript submitted to our journal undergoes a rigorous and meticulous peer-review process, conducted by experts in the field.

Following the submission, the journal's editorial assistant conducts a technical pre-check of the manuscript. Subsequently, an appropriate academic editor is informed of the submission and invited to conduct an editorial pre-check, recommending potential reviewers.  Academic editors have the discretion to either proceed with the peer review, reject the manuscript, or request revisions prior to peer review. In cases where the peer review process is continued, the Editorial Office arranges for independent experts to conduct the peer review, aiming to gather a minimum of two review reports for each manuscript.

Authors are requested to make adequate revisions, with the possibility of a second round of peer review, if necessary, before a final decision is reached. The ultimate decision is made by an academic editor, typically the Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board Member, or Guest Editor of a Special Issue. Accepted manuscripts then undergo internal copy-editing and English editing processes.

1. Ensuring a double-blind review process

The Journal of Block and Intensive Learning and Teaching uses a double-blind peer review process. The double-blind review means that the reviewer and author identities are concealed, with no party knowing the name or other information about the other. This process attempts to ensure that research is judged fairly with minimal bias; however, anonymity is sometimes difficult to achieve even with perfect anonymization of manuscripts. For the review process to run smoothly, authors must ensure that all identifying information is removed.

There are a few common places where identifying information occurs in a manuscript, so authors should take care to revisit their work and ensure that the following guidelines are met prior to submission:

• All author names must be removed
• Authors citing their own work should replace citations with the following and exclude other information: [Author, Date]
• Third person should be used to refer to authors’ own works. Replace phrases like “as we/I have shown in our/my previous study” with “as shown before in [Author, 2018].”
• For blinding in the reference list, replace any publications by the manuscript author with: [Author, Year] Details omitted for double-blind reviewing.
• Do not include cover pages, biographies, acknowledgements, references to funding sources, or any other identifying features in the manuscript submitted for review purposes.
• Author details should be added into the journal system (rather than the manuscript) and should include all authors’ names, affiliations, and contact information for the corresponding author including a phone number and e-mail address. The author details will be used by journal administrators and will not be available to reviewers.

2. Reviewers’ Profile and Responsibilities

The reviewer holds a pivotal role with significant responsibility in upholding the integrity of the scholarly record. It is essential for every reviewer to assess the manuscript in a timely, transparent, and ethical manner, following the guidelines established by :

1. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Committee on Publication Ethics. Available online.

Reviewers must satisfy the following criteria:

1. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should have no conflicts of interest with any of the authors.
2. Institutional Affiliation: Reviewers should not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors.
3. Relevant Expertise: Reviewers should possess relevant qualifications and experience and have a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper, as evidenced by Scopus or ORCID.
4. Scholarly Experience: Reviewers should be experienced scholars in the specific field related to the submitted paper.
5. Academic Affiliation: Reviewers must have an official and recognized academic affiliation.

Overall Recommendation

Author(s) will be provided with reviewers' comments and the outcome of the review process which may fall under the following categories:

• Accept in Present Form: The paper can be accepted without any further changes.
• Accept after Minor Revisions: The paper can in principle be accepted after revision based on the reviewers' comments. Authors are given five days for minor revisions.
• Reconsider after Major Revisions: The acceptance of the manuscript depends on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point-by-point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. A maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript is normally provided. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within ten days and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further consideration. If the required revision time is estimated to be longer than two months, it is recommended that authors withdraw their manuscript before resubmitting to avoid unnecessary time pressure and to ensure that all manuscripts are sufficiently revised.
• Declined: The article has serious flaws, makes no original contribution, and the paper may be rejected with no offer of resubmission to the journal.

Note that your recommendation is visible only to journal editors, not to the authors. Decisions on revisions, acceptance, or rejections must always be well justified.