The International Journal of Chinese Language Education (IJCLE) publishes high-quality research in Chinese language teaching and learning by scholars throughout the world. Peer review is essential to our mission of building a coherent knowledge base across geographic and intellectual borders. Reviewers should familiarize themselves with the following ethical guidelines and evaluation criteria before undertaking a review.

1. Peer Review Ethics

IJCLE is committed to the highest standards of ethical peer review. As a reviewer, you are expected to adhere to the following principles:

Conflicts of Interest: Please carefully consider whether you have any potential conflicts of interest before undertaking the review. For example, you should not review papers written by anyone you have worked with, taught, or published with in the past.

Double-Blind Review: IJCLE uses a double-blind peer review process. If you come to discover the identity of the author(s) through any means, please inform the journal editor immediately.

Confidentiality: The peer review process is strictly confidential. You must not make personal use of unpublished information, communicate the content of manuscripts to others, or contact the author(s) directly.

Objectivity: Please be careful not to make judgments about the paper based on personal, financial, or intellectual biases, or any considerations other than the quality of the research and written presentation of the paper.

Citation Manipulation: Reviewers should not suggest that authors include citations of the reviewer’s work merely to increase their citation count. Suggestions on citation inclusion must be based on valid academic reasons.

2. How to Review for IJCLE

Invitation: You will be emailed an invitation to review a manuscript.

Response: Please click the response link in the email to indicate whether you agree or decline to review the manuscript within. Once you respond, you will receive a confirmation email. If you do not respond, you may receive email reminders. After three days with no response, another reviewer may be invited to review the manuscript.

Confirmation: If you accept the review invitation, you will receive a confirmation email with the full manuscript and the review form. You will then have three weeks to complete the review.

Extensions:  If you are unable to return a review by the deadline, please contact the IJCLE Editorial Office to request an extension.

Reassignment: If you miss the deadline by more than one week and have not responded to the Editorial Office’s reminder emails, the manuscript may be reassigned to another reviewer.

Revisions: If the author(s) are invited to revise and resubmit a manuscript, IJCLE will send the revised manuscript to the same reviewers who evaluated the original submission.

3. Evaluating the Manuscript

At its core, research involves making a principled argument based on theory and evidence. As you review a manuscript, please consider the following questions:

Background: How well have the authors located their inquiry against a background of extant knowledge? Are the citations relevant, comprehensive, and accurately reflecting current research and assumptions?

Originality and Innovation: Does the manuscript offer novel perspectives, new insights, or innovative approaches to the field of Chinese language education?

Methodology: How good is the fit between the research question(s) and methodology? 

Significance: How is the research significant for informing and improving theory and/or practice in Chinese language education?

Organization and Structure: Is the manuscript logically organized? Is there a clear, coherent chain of reasoning by which the authors organize their arguments and evidence to reach their conclusions?

Language and Clarity: Is the writing clear, concise, and professional? Are the arguments articulated effectively and accessible to the academic community?

4. Crafting a Constructive Review

A good review makes explicit the bases for your comments and recommendations. We offer the following suggestions to help you craft a highly effective review:

Make your Thinking Public: A good review makes explicit the bases for your comments and recommendations. If you state that “one simply cannot use these studies to reach this conclusion,” or “the research makes a compelling case,” please say why. Your critique should be consistent with the overall recommendation you make concerning publication.

Be Well Organized: It is often helpful to start by briefly summarizing what the authors did, what they found, and how they interpreted the findings. Separate methodological or technical issues from conceptual ones, and stage your comments to make clear what the big issues of concern are as opposed to small issues.

Be Constructive: A good review should be formative as well as summative. Even if a manuscript should be rejected, give feedback that will help the authors improve their work in future studies. Be specific and to the point. Please write your review as if you are addressing the author(s) rather than the editors. It will also help establish a collegial and friendly tone.

5. AI Use in Peer Review

Confidentiality and AI Tools: Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, or any parts of them, into generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude). Using AI to generate review reports, editorial recommendations, or manuscript summaries strictly violates peer-review confidentiality.

Reporting Suspected AI Use: If you suspect the inappropriate or undisclosed use of generative AI in a submitted manuscript, please flag your concerns directly to the journal editor.

Further Details: For IJCLE’s comprehensive Artificial Intelligence Policy, please refer to: 

 (Link to Author Guideline Section 6, after the website is completed) 

References: 

https://www.sagepub.com/journals/information-for-reviewers/peer-review-ethics

https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/19362722/instructions-for-reviewers.html

The manuscripts rated as “Strongly recommended for publication”, “Recommended for publication”, “Revision needed before acceptance”, and those that pass the second round review will be submitted to the Editorial Board to confirm publication. For manuscripts that have been confirmed, the Journal will send the “Author Permission to Publish Form” and “Copyright Agreement Form” documents to the authors. The authors should sign and return the documents before final publication.

1. Author(s) can write to the Journal to withdraw the manuscript.
2. If an author(s) request to withdraw a manuscript is made during the preliminary review process, then the Editorial Board will not consider another manuscript from the author within the same year.