Journal of Life-Span Psychology, Linguistics, and Media Studies (JLLM) is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Every manuscript submitted to JLLM must undergo a rigorous peer review process to ensure its academic integrity and credibility before publication. The peer review process involves an in-depth evaluation by at least two reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. The primary objective of the peer review process is to assess the manuscript’s originality, methodology, and suitability for publication while maintaining the highest academic standards.

The peer review process at JLLM follows these 9 steps:

1. Submission of Manuscript

The corresponding author submits the manuscript via the Open Journal System (OJS). To facilitate authors, JLLM also temporarily accepts manuscript submissions by email.

2. Editorial Office Assessment

The submitted manuscript is first assessed by the JLLM editorial team. The editors check whether the manuscript aligns with the journal’s focus and scope. The structure and formatting of the manuscript are evaluated based on the Author Guidelines. Additionally, an initial quality check is conducted to identify any major methodological flaws. Manuscripts that pass this stage will be screened using Turnitin to check for plagiarism before proceeding to peer review.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates whether the manuscript is sufficiently original, interesting, and significant for publication. If the manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards, it may be rejected at this stage without further review.

4. Invitation to Reviewers

The handling editor sends invitations to expert reviewers based on their expertise, relevance to the topic, and absence of conflicts of interest. The double-blind peer review system is implemented, meaning that neither the reviewers nor the authors know each other's identities.

5. Reviewers’ Response to Invitations

Potential reviewers assess the invitation based on their expertise, availability, and any potential conflicts of interest. They then decide whether to accept or decline the request. If they decline, they may suggest an alternative reviewer.

6. Peer Review Process

Reviewers carefully read and evaluate the manuscript in multiple stages. If major methodological flaws are found, the reviewers may recommend immediate rejection. Otherwise, they provide a detailed assessment of the manuscript, including:

• Clarity and academic contribution
• Methodological soundness and data analysis
• Relevance to the journal’s scope

After completing the evaluation, reviewers will provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accepted without revisions
• Accepted with minor revisions
• Major revisions required
• Rejected

7. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor review all returned evaluations before making a final decision. If there are significant discrepancies in the reviewers' recommendations, an additional reviewer may be invited to provide further assessment.

8. Communication of Decision to the Author

The editor sends the decision email to the author, including any relevant comments from the reviewers. Reviewer comments are sent anonymously to the corresponding author for necessary actions and responses.

9. Final Publication

If the manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to copy-editing and formatting before publication. If the manuscript requires revisions, it is returned to the author for modifications. If major revisions are required, the revised manuscript may be reassessed by the reviewers. However, if only minor changes are requested, the final decision may be made by the handling editor. Once the editor approves the revised manuscript, it is officially accepted and scheduled for publication. Accepted manuscripts are published online and made freely available as downloadable PDF files.