Reviewer guidelines

On being asked to review 


When being invited to review for our journal, we suggest you consider the invitation with particular focus on these two questions: 

Does the article I am being asked to review match my expertise? 

Do I have time to review it? 

In general, we hope that you will submit your review within four weeks. However, this timeframe can be slightly extended under certain circumstances. We ask that if for some reason you find yourself unable to complete your review after agreeing to do it, you contact the editors of Apples as soon as possible. If you are unable to conduct the review, we would greatly appreciate any leads on other potential reviewers. 


Conducting the review 

We ask you to evaluate the article based on the following criteria/questions: 

Does it fit the scope of Apples? See our mission statement at 

Does the article contribute original work? 

Is the article grounded firmly in appropriate theory?  

Is the article clearly structured and understandable? 

Is the methodology coherent, transparent, and aligned with the research questions? 

Does the analysis support the findings and conclusions? 

Do you have other (for instance, ethical) concerns? 


Report to the editor 

Please provide a brief summary of the article at the top of your report.  

The report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing the points outlined in the preceding section. Please be considerate, constructive and concrete; consider how you would react to receiving these suggestions. Please explain and support your evaluations so that both editors and authors are better able to understand the basis of the comments. Our goal is to encourage scholars to develop their manuscripts, so suggesting how the manuscript can be improved, even if your recommendation is to reject it, is always a good idea. 


When you make a recommendation regarding an article, it is worth considering the categories the editors use for classifying the article. 

  1. Reject due to poor quality, or out of scope ofApples - Journal of AppliedLanguage Studies, or because of ethical concerns (duplicate submission, plagiarism or self-plagiarism) 
  2. Accept without revision 
  3. Accept but needs revision

If you think the article needs to be revised, please indicate to the editor whether or not you would be available for reviewing the revised article. 

Our warmest thanks for reviewing for Apples - Journal of Applied Language Studies!  

The Editors