Notes for Reviewers

1) Schedule: The deadline for submission of papers was Sunday, January 11, 2026. After submission, the editors completed an initial screening to ensure that manuscripts met basic specifications, including relevance, abstracts in both English and Japanese, and suitability for blind review. Manuscripts enter the review process in cycles. Review requests will be sent on a rolling basis, and most reviews are expected to be completed by April. Please begin your review promptly once you receive a review assignment. You will need to complete the review within 2 weeks. If you need an extension, please let Bethany know before the original deadline.

2) Review Assignment and Blind Review:  Most manuscripts can be reviewed by generalists rather than specialists. Editors take reviewers’ interests into consideration when assigning reviews. In some cases, a manuscript may require specific expertise, and reviewers may be contacted directly. The Postconference Publication (PCP) follows a blind peer-review process. Because the editorial team cannot know which conference sessions reviewers attended or which authors they may know, reviewers must notify the editor immediately if they recognize a manuscript, attended the related presentation, or believe they can identify the author. The manuscript will be reassigned without penalty.

3) Workload: There are 62 submissions in this year’s PCP cycle. All authors are required to complete at least one peer review. Reviewers who have not submitted a manuscript are welcome to review as many manuscripts as they wish. Review time varies by manuscript, but most reviews take approximately 30–90 minutes. Manuscripts that require subject-matter expertise or careful evaluation of methods may take longer.

4) Reviewing Stance: The annual PCP is a peer-reviewed publication. This means that your review is an important deciding factor in whether the manuscript is published. Please consider the overall quality of the submission when you make your recommendation. There are three possible recommendations.

Accept Submission – The paper is ready to publish as is or with only minor revisions. The author will need to work with a content editor to polish the paper prior to a final acceptance decision by the editor-in-chief.

Revisions Required – The paper could be of a publishable standard with substantial revisions. The author will work extensively with a content editor to revise the paper prior to a final acceptance decision by the editor-in-chief.

Reject Submission – The paper is not publishable as is and is not likely to be improved to publishable standards.

If you are on the fence about whether to accept or reject a manuscript, consider our timeline. Can the author make the suggested revisions within 20 days to get the manuscript to publishable quality? 

The PCP also serves as professional development for many JALT members. Reviews should therefore provide constructive, balanced feedback and mention both strengths and areas for improvement. Comprehensive reviews are particularly helpful, as authors revise their manuscripts based directly on reviewer comments. Even if the manuscript is rejected, the author can use the feedback to revise and resubmit elsewhere. The expected acceptance rate for this year’s PCP is approximately 60%.

5)    Review Contents: The PCP uses a structured review form, which is designed to give authors clear, actionable feedback. Please organize your review using the headings below.

Important notes: 1) Many PCP submissions are not quantitative research papers. Some describe teaching practices or early-stage projects. Please evaluate the manuscript according to the author’s intent. In the review form, Point 5 has alternate criteria depending on whether the paper is research-oriented or practice-oriented. 

2) Some manuscripts are based on JALT conference presentations. The PCP does not publish summaries of conference sessions. All submissions should be written as stand-alone academic papers that clearly relate to education through research, practice, or informed opinion.

JALT Postconference Publication's  Review Points 

1. Strengths

2. Areas for Improvement

3. Significance and Relevance to JALT Readers (topic, problem, or practice)

4. Framework and Supporting Literature (conceptual/theoretical framing and engagement with literature. ALL papers must engage with the literature.)

5. Method / Practice and Evidence: Please note that all manuscripts involving human participants or subjects, it must include a clear informed consent statement.

• Research-oriented: appropriateness of design/method, clarity/accuracy of findings, sound interpretation. 

• Practice-oriented: rationale and appropriateness of the practice, clarity of description, outcomes (if applicable), implications

6. Organization and Writing Quality (structure, clarity, and readability)

7. Completion: The manuscript represents a complete and coherent scholarly work, rather than a set of research notes, slides, or an outline of a project. The manuscript is also not a summary of the conference presentation itself, but an academic paper that stands independently for readers who did not attend the session.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Bethany at blacy.jalt@gmail.com.