The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics (CJAL) strongly supports the publishing ethics guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and has adopted our policy based on their guidelines and core practices. Our Publication Ethics document outlines the responsibilities of all parties involved in the editorial process, including but not limited to authors, editors, and reviewers.
Definition of authorship: while norms differ across disciplines regarding who is listed as an author for manuscripts, the CJAL has applied the following principles to define eligible authorship:
- Substantial contribution has been made to the work, whether it involves the conception or design of the work, acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the data for the work, and/or
- Drafting or revising of the work for important intellectual content has been done, and/or
- Final approval of the manuscript to be published has been given, and/or
- Accountability is provided for the work that was done and its presentation in a publication.
Authors may wish to include any individuals who do not meet the criteria for authorship in the Acknowledgements section of a manuscript to recognize their contributions.
Corresponding Author’s Responsibilities:
- Ensure any coauthors have seen and agreed to the submitted manuscript and their inclusion of names as coauthors;
- Handle all correspondence with the Journal’s editorial team throughout the editorial process, and
- Respond to queries related to copyediting and/or proofreading in a timely manner.
- Authorship disputes: Authors are encouraged to prevent authorship disputes by discussing each contributor’s role in the early stages of a project and confirming these roles in writing before submitting a manuscript to the Journal. If an authorship dispute arises after a manuscript is submitted to the Journal, the Journal will suspend the editorial process until all authors involved confirm a resolution in writing.
- Conflicts of interest: Any conflicts of interest must be declared to the editors at the time of initial submission of the work. A conflict of interest is defined as those which may influence the judgment of the editors, reviewers, or author(s). Conflicts of interest may be personal, commercial, political, academic, or financial in nature. All sources of funding for the research should be explicitly stated.
- Originality and plagiarism: The CJAL follows Cambridge University Press’ definition of plagiarism, which involves “using someone else’s ideas, words, data or other material produced by them without acknowledgement.” All manuscripts submitted to the Journal are screened for plagiarism, and any evidence of significant plagiarism will lead to the rejection of the submission. Cases of plagiarism that arise post-publication may lead to the retraction or correction of the manuscript in question.
- Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publications: Authors cannot submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at a time. Should the editorial team become aware that a manuscript undergoing the CJAL’s peer-review process is under consideration by other journals, the editorial team will decline the manuscript. In the case where multiple manuscripts are produced based on a single research project, all previously published materials should be disclosed and properly cited in the submitted manuscript.
- Reporting standards: Authors must present their data accurately. Any instance of fraudulent reporting will be investigated, and if the accusations are substantiated, it will lead to the retraction or correction of the manuscript in question.
- Acknowledgement of sources: Authors must follow the American Psychological Association (7th edition) guidelines to properly cite all sources used in the submitted manuscript.
- Intellectual property: Authors should refer to the Journal’s Copyright Notice for more information about copyright and the terms of publishing under the CC BY 4.0 Creative Commons License.
- Post-publication discussions and corrections: Authors are encouraged to notify the Editors of any errors found in a submitted manuscript, particularly when the errors may lead to misinterpretation of the data.
The Editor(s)-in-chief provide overall vision, policy and editorial decision-making for the Journal; select(s) and lead(s) the Editorial and Review Boards; and develop(s) the budget and monitor(s) finances, including applying for funding. Throughout the peer-review process, the Editor(s)-in-chief may confer with other co-editors or reviewers when making editorial decisions.
- Peer review: All manuscripts submitted to Journal are subject to a two-stage evaluation process. Initially, the Editor(s)-in-chief screen(s) the submitted manuscript to determine if it is eligible for review. Once the Editor(s)-in-chief has/have determined that a manuscript is eligible for review, a double anonymized peer-review process is initiated. The Editor(s)-in-chief will recommend potential reviewers, which are then contacted by the Managing Editor. Reviewers will be assigned with a request that the review would normally be submitted within 4 weeks (however, extensions might be possible based on specific circumstances). Once the reviews are received, the Editor(s)-in-chief will make one of four decisions:
- Accept the manuscript as is (Accept)
- Accept it with minor revisions (Revisions Required)
- Request that the manuscript be revised and resubmitted for further evaluation (Revise and Resubmit)
- Decline the submission (Decline)
- Fair play: The Editor(s) evaluate(s) the content of each manuscript without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnicity, or citizenship of the authors.
- Confidentiality: All materials submitted to the Journal are kept confidential. With the assistance of the Managing Editor, the Editor(s)-in-chief ensure(s) that all manuscripts are anonymized before they are sent out for review. The Editor(s) will also protect the reviewers' identities throughout the anonymized peer-review process and maintain confidentiality while communicating with reviewers. The Editor(s) will not use any unpublished materials submitted to the Journal in their own research without written content from the author(s). Any information or ideas developed through the peer-review process will be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
- Authorship disputes: Any authorship disputes that cannot be resolved between authors are typically referred to the authors’ affiliated institution. If an authorship dispute arises prior to publication, the Journal will suspend the editorial process of the manuscript in question until all parties involved can provide a resolution in writing. Any authorship disputes that arise after publication will be dealt with appropriately, which may involve an error correction in a published manuscript, or in extreme cases, a published letter expressing concern or retraction of said manuscript.
- Conflicts of interest: Editor(s) must declare any conflicts of interest to the Journal’s readership, and when necessary, withdraw from the editorial process for a particular manuscript that involves a conflict of interest. Members of the Editorial Team or Guest Editors may contribute to manuscripts submitted to the Journal; however, they will be excluded from the editorial process as it pertains to the in-house screening process, selection of reviewers, and any final editorial decisions made.
- Post-publication discussions and corrections: the Editor(s) will respond promptly to any concerns voiced by readers, reviewers, or authors regarding errors or possible misrepresentations in a manuscript. The manuscript’s status in the publication process (e.g., pre or post-publication), as well as the severity of the error(s) or misrepresentation, will inform the approach taken to rectify the concern. Such approaches may involve a correction for minor errors, or in extreme cases when the error(s) or misrepresentation seriously undermines the validity or reliability of the reported findings, a retraction.
Each submitted manuscript that is deemed eligible for review is evaluated by two reviewers. The review process is "anonymous” in that only the Editor(s) know the identity of the reviewers and author(s). Reviewers are provided with peer review guidelines and an evaluation form through the Journal’s online system. Reviewers are selected based on the relevance of their area of specialization to the manuscript under consideration. The Journal identifies potential reviewers through the CJAL’s Review Board, Editorial Advisory Board, registered reviewer lists, and by searching for known experts in a particular field.
- Contribution to editorial decisions: Reviewers assist the Editor(s)-in-chief in making editorial decisions. Reviewers provide their evaluation of a manuscript during the initial peer-review phase of the editorial process, and then may provide a second evaluation if the manuscript is revised and submitted again for review.
Reviewers should decline any request when: 1) they believe they are not qualified to review the content of the manuscript, 2) detect any conflicts of interest (please refer to the “Conflicts of interest” section below for details on what such conflicts may entail), and/or 3) cannot provide a review within a timeframe determined by the Journal.
- Confidentiality: Throughout the double-anonymized peer-review process, reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality and not discuss the contents of the manuscript with anyone besides the Editor(s)-in-chief. Reviewers will not use any unpublished materials from manuscripts they review for their own research without written content from the author(s). Any information or ideas developed through the peer-review process will be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
- Conflicts of interest: Reviewers should declare any suspected conflicts of interest that may arise from a request to review a manuscript, such as contributions to the work in question or any relationships or connections with any of the affiliated authors, companies, or institutions.
- Co-reviewing: Reviewers must contact the Editor(s)-in-chief if they wish to nominate a co-reviewer for a manuscript, such as a graduate student. If for any reason the nomination is deemed unsuitable by the Editor(s)-in-chief, the reviewer will be asked to complete the assessment on their own.
- Suspected research or publication misconduct: Any instances of suspected research or publication misconduct that arise during the peer-review process should be immediately reported to the Editor(s)-in-chief.