For Reviewers


Journals published by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language use external experts to help evaluate articles and assist the editors to make a decision.

After the submission, articles are checked and any that appear out of the journal’s scope, or are otherwise unsuitable for consideration, are rejected immediately.
All other original research papers are sent out for review.

Reviewers are selected based on their experience of the subject matter of the paper. They may be selected from the Editorial Board of the journal as well as from elsewhere. The journal editorial offices and editors identify suitable experts and invite them to review. The editors' judgement of reviewer is final.
The journal uses double-blind peer review. This means that neither the authors, nor the reviewers know the identity of each other to avoid bias.

The articles are sent to reviewers only after their consent to review. The reviewing operation is managed through the submission system.

The review process is usually no longer than one month. However, the journal cannot guarantee a time to decision since reviewers may be late, or there may be problems in finding the right reviewer. In all cases the journal editorial office will endeavour to manage the process as speedily as possible.
When the editors have received at least 2 reviews they will make a decision.

During the review the following is being assessed:

  • The structure of the article compliance with the requirements for scientific publications;
  • The title's compliance with the content;
  • Formulation of research aim and objectives, suitability of methodology; Novelty and originality of the research;
  • Abstract, relevance of key words;
  • Completeness and representativeness of the list of references and sources;
  • Formulation of conclusions, their validity, link with the title;
  • Correctness of language and compliance with the requirements of scientific style.

ETHICAL PEER REVIEW – guideline for reviewers

The Institute of the Lithuanian Language complies with the Committee on Publication Ethics Guidelines for Peer Reviewers which provides a comprehensive guide to the ethics of peer review.

In particular, reviewers are asked to take note of the following:

Conflict of interest (or competing interests)

If the reviewer considers that there is any conflict of interest that may compromise their review, they are required to make this known to the editorial office, and may be excused from performing the review. The reviewer may not be aware of this until they have accepted the invitation to review. "Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious in nature. If you are currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or have been recent (e.g., within the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders, you should not agree to review. In addition, you should not agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review, or agree to review a manuscript that is very similar to one you have in preparation or under consideration at another journal." (from the COPE Guidelines)


Reviewers are required to respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and "refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring), without first obtaining permission from the journal. The names of any individuals who have helped with the review should be included so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can also receive due recognition for their efforts." (from the COPE Guidelines)


Reviewers are asked to return their reviews by the requested date, and to inform the editorial office if there is likely to be a delay.

Reviewers are asked to always be polite and constructive in their report, and never to be abusive or to make unjustified criticisms of the work.