Peer Review Process

ANANTA: Journal of Language Education, Linguistics, and Literature is committed to ensuring a fair, transparent, rigorous, and timely peer-review process. All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment followed by a double-blind peer review, in which neither the authors nor the reviewers are informed of each other's identities. Every manuscript is evaluated solely on its scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, and contribution to the field. 
The average timeline from submission to the first editorial decision is approximately 2–8 weeks, depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the extent of revisions required.

Manuscript Submission

Estimated Time: Immediately upon submission
Authors must submit their manuscripts exclusively through the ANANTA Online Journal System (OJS). The Editorial Office does not accept submissions via email or other communication channels.
Upon successful submission, the manuscript receives a unique identification number, and the corresponding author receives an automatic confirmation email.

Stage 1. Initial Editorial Screening

Estimated Time: 1–4 weeks
The editor-in-chief or handling editor conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for peer review. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated based on the following criteria:
- Compliance with the official ANANTA manuscript template and formatting requirements.
- Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
- Originality and scholarly contribution.
- English language quality and overall readability.
- Completeness of the submission, including author information and required documents.
- Initial plagiarism screening using Turnitin or equivalent software, with a maximum acceptable similarity index of 20% (excluding references, quotations, and bibliographic materials).

Following the editorial screening, the manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:
- Proceed to Peer Review
- Minor Technical Revision Before Review
- Desk Rejection

Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet the journal's formatting requirements, demonstrate poor language quality, exhibit excessive similarity, or lack sufficient scientific merit.

Stage 2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Estimated Time: 2–8 weeks
Manuscripts that successfully pass the editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on several criteria, including:
- Originality and novelty
- Scientific significance
- Research methodology
- Data analysis
- Validity and reliability of findings
- Organization and clarity of presentation
- Quality of discussion
- Appropriateness of references
- Ethical compliance

The review process follows a double-blind system to ensure impartiality and objectivity.
Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:
- Accept without revision
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject

If revisions are required, authors must submit the following:
- A revised manuscript.
- A detailed response to reviewers document explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Depending on the quality of the revisions, the manuscript may undergo one or more additional rounds of peer review. Consequently, manuscripts requiring extensive revisions may exceed the average review period of eight weeks.

Stage 3. Editorial Decision

After receiving all reviewer reports, the Handling Editor and Editor-in-Chief carefully evaluate the recommendations before making the final editorial decision.
Editorial decisions are based on:
- Reviewer comments and recommendations.
- Scientific quality of the manuscript.
- Compliance with the journal's publication standards.
- Adequacy of the authors' revisions.

The final decision may be the following:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject

The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to make the final publication decision.

Stage 4. Copyediting and Production

After acceptance, the manuscript enters the copyediting stage.
During this stage, the editorial team performs:
- Language editing and proofreading.
- Formatting and layout verification.
- Consistency checks for references and citations.
- Figure and table quality assessment.
- Pagination and publication formatting.
- Metadata verification.
- Final plagiarism screening to ensure publication integrity.

If necessary, the copyeditor may contact the corresponding author to clarify information or request minor corrections before publication.
Upon successful completion of this stage, the corresponding author will receive an Official Letter of Acceptance (LoA).

Stage 5. Proofreading

Before publication, authors receive the final proof (galley proof) for review.
Authors are requested to:
- Check typographical errors.
- Verify author names and affiliations.
- Confirm tables, figures, and equations.
- Verify references and DOI links.
- Review metadata and acknowledgements.

Only minor corrections are permitted at this stage. Substantial revisions affecting the scientific content are generally not allowed after acceptance.

Stage 6. Publication

After final author approval, the Editorial Office prepares the manuscript for publication by:
- Assigning the article DOI through Crossref.
- Preparing the final PDF and HTML/XML files (where applicable).
- Completing metadata registration.
- Checking indexing information.
- Scheduling the article for publication in the appropriate issue.

The article is then officially published on the ANANTA website as an open access publication under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License.

Average time from submission to the first editorial decision: 2–8 weeks.

Please note that the review timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability, the number of revision rounds required, and the complexity of the submitted manuscript. ANANTA is committed to providing constructive, rigorous, and timely peer review while maintaining the highest standards of academic quality and publication ethics.