Peer Review Policy
(Last updated 14 December 2025)
The JALA Journal peer review policy ensures that the JALA publications attain a high standard of scholarship and literary integrity. This policy seeks to ensure that these publications continuously increase in objectivity. All manuscripts submitted to and published by the journal are peer reviewed using the procedures throughout this page, where all peer review is managed by the Editor-in-Chief.
The Editor-in-Chief first evaluates all manuscripts. Though rare, but it is possible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have significant scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are normally passed on to at least two experts for blind review.
The peer review system is always (at least) double blind, placing both referee / reviewer and author as anonymous to each other.
The GLOCAL JALA attempts to match the paper with reviewers who have expertise with the paper under review. The Journal maintains a large database of reviewers from which it draws for the process.
The criteria for review are as follows:
The duration for the review process is predicated on several factors, such as reviewer feedback, reviewer corrections, author corrections, author submissions, and formatting. At times, the Journal seeks the opinions of other experts and academics in the field as the decision may be conflicting or as the reviewer feels that they require more expertise. As such, reviews usually take up to six months.
Authors will receive notifications of acceptance or rejection in due course, and these will include all comments by reviewers.
Authors are able to contact the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) who is responsible for the final decision, should they feel that there has been an unjust decision, and this will be considered, once. After one re-review, the EIC’s decision is final and cannot be changed.
