PEER REVIEW POLICY

The Link journal of Speech, Language and Audiology (JSLA) apply a rigorous peer review process to safeguard scientific integrity, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and editorial objectivity. JSLA uses a double-blind peer review model in which author and reviewer identities are not disclosed to each other during the review process. The editorial team administers the workflow to maintain anonymity, reduce bias, and ensure that editorial decisions are made primarily on the basis of scholarly merit, relevance to the journal’s scope, and the quality and transparency of reporting.

Type of Peer Review

JSLA uses a double-blind peer review system. Under this model, reviewers are not informed of author identities and authors are not informed of reviewer identities. To support anonymity, manuscripts are processed in a way that minimizes identifying metadata and removes obvious author identifiers from the files sent to reviewers. Where a submission contains unavoidable identifying information due to the nature of the work (for example, a single-site protocol that is widely known, or prior preprint posting that makes authorship discoverable), the journal still applies the same review standards and editorial safeguards, recognizing that perfect anonymity cannot always be guaranteed in practice.

Peer Review Workflow (Step-by-Step)

The timelines below represent typical targets and may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision quality, and the number of revision rounds required. JSLA prioritizes timely decisions without compromising review quality, and it communicates with authors when delays are anticipated or when additional review steps are necessary.

Step 1   Initial Submission Check (0–3 days)

Upon submission, the editorial office conducts an administrative and technical screening to confirm that the manuscript fits the journal’s general aims and scope, that required files and declarations are complete, and that the submission is suitable to proceed for editorial evaluation. This stage typically includes a similarity screening using plagiarism-detection software (including Turnitin where applicable), basic checks for compliance with formatting and submission requirements, and an initial review of ethical declarations such as institutional review approval, informed consent, clinical trial registration (when relevant), and statements regarding conflicts of interest and funding. If the submission is incomplete, outside scope, or fails baseline policy requirements, it is returned to the author for correction or may be declined prior to external review.

Step 2   Editor-in-Chief / Handling Editor Screening (3–7 days)

Following the initial check, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Handling Editor evaluates the manuscript for suitability for peer review. This screening focuses on scientific relevance to JSLA’s scope, originality or contribution value (including confirmatory or negative/null findings when well-justified), methodological credibility, reporting clarity, and ethical acceptability. At this stage, the editor may decide to send the manuscript for external review, request targeted revisions prior to review where the study is promising but not yet review-ready, or issue a desk rejection when the manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or is not a good fit. When desk rejection occurs, the journal communicates the primary reasons in a decision letter to support author understanding and potential resubmission elsewhere.

Step 3   Reviewer Selection and Invitation (7–10 days)

If the manuscript proceeds to external review, JSLA invites at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject-matter and methodological expertise. Reviewer selection aims to balance content expertise with methods/statistics competence where appropriate for the study design. When specialized expertise is required (for example, genomics, advanced analytics, implementation science, or complex trials), the journal may invite additional reviewers or consult an academic editor to ensure an informed evaluation. Reviewers are required to disclose conflicts of interest prior to accepting an invitation, and invitations may be declined or reassigned if conflicts, availability constraints, or inadequate expertise are identified.

Step 4   Double-Blind Peer Review (14–21 days)

During the peer review phase, reviewers assess the submission’s scientific validity, methodological rigor, statistical analysis (where applicable), completeness of reporting, ethical safeguards, novelty or contribution value, clarity of presentation, and alignment with the journal’s scope and readership. Reviewers are asked to provide constructive feedback that is specific enough for authors to act upon, including recommendations to strengthen design justification, transparency of methods, interpretation of findings, and appropriate citation and contextualization within the literature. Reviewers also provide a clear recommendation that supports editorial decision making, typically indicating whether the manuscript is suitable for acceptance as is, acceptance after minor revision, reconsideration after major revision, resubmission for new review after extensive changes, or rejection.

Step 5   Editorial Decision (within ~5 days of receiving reviews)

After the reviews are received, the Handling Editor synthesizes reviewer feedback and reaches a decision. The editorial decision is based on the overall strength of the evidence, the seriousness of identified issues, the feasibility of addressing concerns through revision, and the manuscript’s fit with JSLA’s editorial priorities. Decision letters generally include anonymized reviewer comments and a clear outline of required revisions, including any methodological clarifications, reporting improvements, or additional analyses needed. Where reviewer recommendations diverge substantially, the editor may seek an additional opinion or provide a structured editorial rationale to reconcile differences and guide the author effectively.

Step 6   Revision Process (7–21 days)

For manuscripts invited for revision, authors are expected to respond comprehensively and transparently to reviewer and editor comments. Revisions should be accompanied by a point-by-point response document describing how each comment was addressed, including explicit references to manuscript changes, and clarifying where suggestions could not be implemented and why. Authors are generally expected to provide a clean revised manuscript and an annotated version showing changes (such as tracked changes) to facilitate efficient re-assessment. Depending on the nature of the revisions, the editor may make a decision based on the revision set alone or may return the manuscript to one or more original reviewers for re-evaluation, particularly when major methodological, analytical, or interpretive changes are involved.

Step 7   Final Decision (3–7 days)

Once revisions are deemed satisfactory, the editor issues a final decision. Acceptance is granted when the manuscript meets the journal’s quality thresholds for scientific rigor, ethical compliance, clarity, and completeness of reporting. In some cases, acceptance may be conditional upon minor editorial refinements or technical corrections that do not materially affect the scientific content. Rejection after revision may occur when critical concerns remain unresolved, when revisions introduce new major problems, or when the manuscript no longer meets the journal’s standards following re-assessment.

Step 8   Production and Publication

After acceptance, manuscripts proceed through production processes that may include copyediting, formatting/typesetting, proofreading, and final author approval of the proof version. JSLA aims to publish accepted work promptly after production completion, while ensuring that the Version of Record is accurate, clearly presented, and consistent with the journal’s publishing standards. Where ahead-of-issue publication is used, articles may be made available online prior to issue compilation, and the journal applies consistent metadata practices to support indexing and discoverability.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations grounded in scholarly standards. Their scientific responsibilities include assessing whether the research question is meaningful, whether the study design and methodology are appropriate, whether analyses are correctly applied and transparently reported, and whether conclusions are supported by the data and appropriately contextualized. Reviewers are also expected to identify limitations, ethical concerns, potential data integrity issues, and citation gaps, and to recommend improvements that enhance clarity, rigor, and reproducibility without imposing unreasonable demands unrelated to the study’s aims.

Reviewers also carry ethical responsibilities. They must treat manuscripts as confidential documents, avoid any use of manuscript content for personal advantage, and disclose conflicts of interest promptly. Where reviewers suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or manipulated data, unethical research conduct, or undisclosed competing interests, they should alert the editor through confidential reviewer comments so the journal can investigate appropriately using established editorial procedures.

AI and Confidentiality

To protect confidentiality, intellectual property, and unpublished scientific ideas, reviewers must not upload, paste, or otherwise disclose manuscript content whether in full or in part into generative AI tools or third-party automated systems that may store, learn from, or redistribute that content. If reviewers use any computational tools to support their work, they are expected to ensure these tools do not compromise confidentiality and that their use aligns with the journal’s ethical expectations for peer review. The journal may decline reviews or remove reviewers from consideration if confidentiality safeguards are not respected.

Editorial Responsibilities

Editors are responsible for ensuring that peer review is fair, unbiased, and focused on scientific merit. Editorial responsibilities include selecting appropriately qualified reviewers, maintaining confidentiality, managing conflicts of interest transparently, and making decisions that are proportionate to the severity of concerns raised in review. Editors are expected to avoid discriminatory or inappropriate decision-making and to ensure that submissions are evaluated consistently, including confirmatory studies and well-justified negative or null results. Editors also oversee post-decision communication, ensuring that decision letters are clear, respectful, and actionable, and they manage complaints and appeals through a structured process that maintains procedural fairness.

Editorial Independence (Handling Submissions from Editors/Board Members)

JSLA maintains editorial independence and seeks to minimize editorial endogeny. Submissions authored or co-authored by editors, editorial board members, or individuals involved in the journal’s peer review operations are handled through an independent editorial pathway. Such individuals are excluded from any editorial decision-making related to their manuscript and are not granted access to reviewer identities or confidential editorial deliberations. Where necessary, the journal assigns an alternative handling editor and applies additional safeguards to ensure that the process remains impartial and credible.

Plagiarism and Ethical Screening

All submissions are subject to similarity screening prior to external review and may be re-screened after revision if substantial changes occur. Similarity percentages are interpreted in context, recognizing that legitimate overlap may exist in methods, references, and standardized terminology; however, substantial unattributed overlap, text recycling that obscures originality, or evidence of duplicated publication may result in rejection or formal investigation. As a general operational threshold, manuscripts with similarity above 15% (Less than 5 present from single source) that includes unacceptable overlap may be declined, particularly when overlap is concentrated in the introduction, results, or discussion, or when the overlap suggests non-original work. Ethical screening also covers requirements such as IRB/REC etc. approval where applicable, informed consent, appropriate clinical trial registration for interventional studies, disclosure of conflicts of interest, and basic data integrity considerations, and the journal may request documentation or clarifications when needed.

Appeals and Complaints Policy

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned request to the journal, addressing specific points in the decision letter and, where relevant, providing evidence or clarifications that were not previously considered. Appeals are evaluated by a senior editor or an independent editor who was not involved in the original decision, to support impartial reassessment. The journal aims to resolve appeals within approximately 2–4 weeks, depending on complexity and whether additional expert input is required. Complaints about editorial conduct, bias, or process irregularities are handled through structured editorial review to ensure fairness, transparency, and appropriate corrective action where warranted.

Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts, peer review reports, editorial correspondence, and decision materials are treated as confidential and are shared only with individuals directly involved in the editorial and peer review process. The journal does not disclose reviewer identities to authors under the double-blind model and does not disclose manuscript content publicly prior to publication. Confidential information obtained during peer review must not be used outside the review context by editors or reviewers, and any suspected breaches are handled as serious ethical concerns.

Peer Review Transparency

JSLA promotes transparency by publicly stating its peer review model, editorial roles, and general processing expectations on the journal website. The journal communicates decision categories and provides reasonable timeline guidance while recognizing that individual cases may vary. Where policy updates are implemented, the journal aims to document changes clearly so that authors and reviewers understand current expectations, including requirements related to conflicts of interest, ethical approvals, corrections/retractions, and confidentiality safeguards.

Special Issues and Guest Editors

For special issues and guest-edited content, JSLA applies the same peer review standards, anonymity safeguards, and editorial oversight as for regular issues. Guest editors may support topic development and reviewer identification, but editorial decisions remain subject to independent oversight to preserve integrity and consistency with journal policy. Guest editor submissions are handled through an independent pathway to avoid conflicts of interest, and special issue articles are clearly labeled to ensure transparency to readers and indexing services.