Journal Article Review and Acceptance Process

The Journal of Literary Criticism and Rhetoric is founded upon peer review and open access principles, in alignment with international publishing standards. Accordingly, the journal has adopted a double-blind peer review process. This means neither the author is informed of the reviewer's identity, nor does the reviewer become aware of the author(s)' details. This ensures that reviews are conducted purely on a scientific basis, free from any preconceptions or bias.

Manuscripts submitted via the system are sent for review if they align with the journal's specialized scope and generally meet the journal's established standards. Upon final approval by the Editor-in-Chief, they enter the publication process.

The Journal of Literary Criticism and Rhetoric is committed to the highest standards of peer review. Respecting publication ethics, it adheres to the rules, policies, and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows the executive bylaw of the Law on Prevention and Dealing with Fraud in Scientific Works. The journal follows the procedures of the aforementioned committee in handling potential cases of misconduct and retraction. All received manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality of their methodology and research argumentation.

After authors submit a manuscript via the journal's management system, it is first reviewed and examined by the journal office, the journal's specialist, and the Editor-in-Chief (within a maximum of one week). Therefore, authors are kindly requested to carefully study the Instructions for Authors, prepare their manuscript accordingly in the Persian section of the guide, and then submit it.

Following the initial assessment by the Executive Manager and upon the Editor-in-Chief's preliminary approval, the manuscript is sent for evaluation and review by the esteemed reviewers. The review and acceptance process for the Journal of Literary Criticism and Rhetoric is as follows:

Manuscript Receipt: Receipt of the manuscript via the journal website and acknowledgment of receipt.

Submission to Editorial Board/Specialist Editor: The manuscript is sent to members of the Editorial Board or the relevant Specialist Editor.

Editorial Board Review: The manuscript is reviewed in an Editorial Board meeting (online review). The outcome can be:

a. Rejection by the Editorial Board due to low priority for the journal.

b. Rejection due to non-alignment with the journal's content and scope.

c. Rejection due to low quality, etc.

The reasons for rejection are communicated to the author.

Initial Revisions (Pre-Review): If applicable, the manuscript may be returned to the authors for initial revisions requested by the Editorial Board. After these revisions are made (and if approved), the manuscript proceeds to the review stage.

Sending to Reviewers: The manuscript is sent to a minimum of 2 to 3 reviewers.

Receiving Review Results: Reviewers' decisions typically fall into three categories:

a. Negative (Reject)

b. Positive (Accept)

c. Revisions Required

Editorial Decision Based on Reviews: The review results are referred to the Editorial Board members for final assessment and decision-making. This leads to one of three outcomes:

a. Article Rejection due to negative reviews (e.g., two reject recommendations).

b. Sending to a Third Reviewer (e.g., in case of one reject and one major revision recommendation).

c. Sending to the Author for Revisions (e.g., when revisions are required based on reviewer comments).

Receipt of Author Revisions: The revised manuscript is received from the authors.

Sending Revisions to Reviewers (Re-evaluation): The author's revised version is sent back to the original (or adjudicating) reviewers for re-evaluation. The outcome can be:

a. Rejection of the revisions (unsatisfactory).

b. Acceptance.

c. Further Revisions Required.

The subsequent actions are:

a. If further revisions are required, the manuscript is returned to the authors again.

b. If all revisions are satisfactorily addressed, acceptance is issued.

c. The article is rejected if revisions are not adequately made according to the reviewers' feedback.