Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Print ISSN: 2548-8457 Online ISSN: 2548-8465 IJoLE: International Journal of Language Education is an international peer reviewed and open access journal in language education. The aim is to publish conceptual and research articles that explore the application of any language in teaching and the everyday experience of language in education. Its scope is international in that it welcomes articles from academics, researchers, graduate students and policy makers. All articles should be in English The scope of Journal: Assessment and testing in language learning and education Applied linguistics methodologies and issues Classroom teaching issues Culture and power in language education Curriculum development and implementation Effective methods for language teaching Diversity, multiculturalism and language education Gender, language and higher education Language skills, development, and issues Language learning and identity Literacy, Bilingualism and bilingual education Teacher training, gender and equality

 

Section Policies

Article

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Author biography

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Editting

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

IJoLE is committed to peer-review integrity and upholding the standards of review. Once your paper has been assessed for suitability by the editor, it will then be single-blind peer reviewed by independent, anonymous expert referees. IJoLE Review Guideline:

Step 1: Editorial assessment

Peer review follows a number of stages, beginning with submitting your article to a journal. At this first stage, the journal editor will decide if it’s suitable for the journal, asking questions such as: • Has the author followed the journal’s guidelines? • Is this the right journal for this article? • Will the journal’s readers find it interesting and useful? The editor might reject the article immediately, but otherwise it will move to the next stage, and into peer review.

Step 2: First round of peer review

The editor will find and contact potential referees or other researchers or academics who are experts in your field. They will be asked to read your article, and advise the editor whether to publish your paper in that journal

Step 3: Revise and resubmit

You can then amend your article based on the reviewers’ comments, resubmitting it with any or all changes made. You may be asked to make further revisions or the paper may be rejected if the editor thinks that the revisions you have made are not adequate.

 

Publication Frequency

Orginally, IJoLE publishes twice a year, March and October. However, starting 2020 IJole will increase up to three issues; March, October and December. In 2021, IJoLE will publish 4 times (March, June, September and December)

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Publication Fee

There is no submission fee for this journal. However, all accepted papers have to pay the publication and BLU University fees. Beginning the mid-term 2023, the fee may up to $595 including BLU University fee; DOI [Digital Object Identifiers] registration for each paper; checking the article similarity by turnitin; and final editing and lay out stage of the paper. The collaborative research papers with appointed UNM Scholars will have special partnership discounted fees. 

Waivers are available to authors particularly from least developing countries (United Nations Lists) and authors who find it financially difficult to pay for article processing charges (APCs). They may lodge a request with the chief editor of the journal.

 

Instruction for Authors

Registration with IJoLE

Please note that the corresponding and all submitting authors MUST register with IJoLE before submitting an article. You must be logged in to your personal IJoLE account to submit an article.

Article Types and Word Count

The specific article types including Research Paper and Review Papers. All papers should be between 4500 – 7000 words in length.

Title

The title is no more than 15 words in length and should be in 14 point normal Times New Roman

Author’s Affiliation

All names are listed based on the following format:

First Author#, (12)
# Institution Affiliation, Country
E-mail: xxx@yyy.zzz

Second Author*,
Institution Affiliation, Country 
E-mail: xxx@yyy.zzz

Third Author#
Institution Affiliation, Country
E-mail: xxx@yyy.zzz

Abstract

The abstract should include general significance and conceptual advance of the work clearly accessible to a broad readership. In the abstract, minimize the use of abbreviations and do not cite references. The abstract should be between 150 and 300 words. The text of the abstract section should be in 11 point normal Times New Roman

Keywords

All article types: you may provide up to 8 keywords; at least 5 are mandatory.


Text

The body text is in 12 point normal Times New Roman. New paragraphs will be separated with a single empty line.


Article Section

Introduction: Succinct, with no subheadings.

Literature Review: This section may be divided by subheadings 

Methodology: This section may be divided by subheadings 

Result/Findings: This section may be divided by subheadings 

Discussion: This section may be divided by subheadings 

Conclusion: Succinct, with no subheadings.


References

APA Style is used for IJoLE. Below are the example taken from Finger Lakes Community Collage Charles J. Meder Library, State University of New York, New York (2017).

Book with Single Author:

Gire, A. (2006). An inconvenient truth: The planetary emergency of global warming and what
we can do about it. Emmaus, PA: Rodale.
In-text reference: (Gire, 2006)
If you quote directly from an author you need to include the page or paragraph number of
the quote in your in-text reference, for example:
In-text reference: (Gire, 2006, pp. 29-30)


Book with Two Authors: Mike, P. J., & Balling, R. C., Jr. (2000). The satanic gases: Clearing the air about global
warming. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.
In-text reference: (Mike & Balling, 2000)


Book with Editor as Author: Grady. K. E. (Ed.). (2004). Global climate change and wildlife in North America. Bethesda, MD: Wildlife Society.


In-text reference: (Grady, 2004)
Brochure or Pamphlet: New York State Department of Health. (2002). After a sexual assault. [Brochure]. Albany, NY: Art Press.
In-text reference: (New York, 2002)


An Anonymous Book:
Environmental resource handbook. (2001). Millerton, NY: Grey House.
In-text reference: (Environmental Resource Handbook, 2001)


Articles in Reference Books (unsigned and signed): Greenhouse effect. (2005). American heritage science dictionary. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Schneider, S. H. (2000). Greenhouse effect. World book encyclopedia (Millennium ed. Vol. 8, pp. 382-383). Chicago, IL: World Book.
In-text references: (Greenhouse effect, 2005)


Magazine Articles: Allen, L. (2004, August). Will Tuvalu disappear beneath the sea? Global warming threatens to swamp a small island nation. Smithsonian, 35(5), pp. 44-52. Begley, S., & Murr, A. (2007, July 2). Which of these is not causing global warming? A. Sport utility vehicles; B. Rice fields; C. Increased solar output. Newsweek, 150(2), pp. 48-50.
In-text references: (Begley, 2007; Murr, 2007)


Newspaper Articles (unsigned and signed): College officials agree to cut greenhouse gases. (2007, June 13). Albany Times Union, p. A4. Landler, M. (2007, June 2). Bush’s Greenhouse Gas Plan Throws Europe Off Guard.
New York Times, p. A7.
In-text references: (“College Officials”, 2007)


Journal Article with Continuous Paging: Miller-Rushing, A. J., Primack, R. B., Primack, D., & Mukunda, S. (2006). Photographs and herbarium specimens as tools to document phonological changes in response to global warming. American Journal of Botany, 93, pp. 1667-1674.
In-text reference: (Miller-Rushing, Primack, Primack, & Mukunda, 2006)


Journal Article when each issue begins with p.1: Bogdonoff, S., & Rubin, J. (2007). The regional greenhouse gas initiative: Taking action in Maine. Environment, 49(2), 9-16.
In-text reference: (Bogdonoff & Rubin, 2007)


Journal Article from a Library Subscription Service Database with a DOI (digital object
identifier): Mora, C., & Maya, M. F. (2006). Effect of the rate of temperature increase of the dynamic method on the heat tolerance of fishes. Journal of Thermal Biology, 31, pp. 337-341. doi: 10.101b/jtherbio.2006.01.055

In-text reference: (Mora & Maya, 2006)

Website: United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2007, May 4). Climate Change. Retrieved From the Environmental Protection Agency website: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange
In-text reference: (United States Environmental, 2007) Gelspan, R. (2007). The Heat Is Online. Lake Oswego, OR: Green House Network. Retrieved from The Heat Is Online website: http://www.heatisonline.org
In-text reference: (Gelspan, 2007)


Acknowledgment This APA Style is taken and modified from Finger Lakes Community Collage Charles J. Meder Library, State University of New York, New York (2017) and American Psychological Association (2017).

 

Publication ethics and malpractice statement

IJOLE is a journal aims to be a leading peer-reviewed platform and an authoritative source of information. We publish original research papers, review articles and case studies focused on foreign language as well as related topics that has neither been published elsewhere in any language, nor is it under review for publication anywhere. This following statement clarifies ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal. This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting Standards: Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts should follow the submission guidelines of the journal.
  2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.
  3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: Author should not in general submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced
  4. Acknowledgement of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.
  5. Authorship of the Paper: The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contribution must be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgement section. Authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors.
  6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should clearly disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
  7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, then the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
  8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: The author should clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use

Duties of Editor

  1. Publication Decisions: Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.
  2. Review of Manuscripts: Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. Editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
  3. Fair Play: The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.
  4. Confidentiality: The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable.
  5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research without written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest

Duties of Reviewers

  1. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  2. Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
  3. Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work
  4. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.  Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
  5. Promptness: The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer