Our Review Process
Northeast Langchive is committed to publishing high-quality, rigorous scholarship on Northeast India’s indigenous languages. Every submission undergoes double-blind peer review to ensure academic standards while remaining accessible to diverse audiences including community practitioners, educators, and technologists.
In double-blind peer review, your identity is hidden from reviewers, and reviewer identities are hidden from you. This process minimizes bias and ensures your work is evaluated solely on its scholarly merit, methodological soundness, and contribution to the field. Our reviewers are experts in linguistics, language technology, indigenous language documentation, or related fields with specific knowledge of Northeast Indian contexts.
When you submit a chapter, our editorial team first conducts an initial assessment to ensure it aligns with the volume’s scope and meets basic formatting requirements. Submissions that pass this stage are then sent to reviewers who evaluate the work based on originality, methodological rigor, clarity of argumentation, relevance to Northeast Indian languages, and potential impact on communities and practitioners. We particularly value work that bridges academic research with practical application and centers the voices of language communities.
Timeline & What to Expect
After you submit your chapter, you’ll receive an automated confirmation email within 48 hours. Our editor then conducts an initial review within 1-2 weeks to determine whether the submission is appropriate for the volume. If your chapter is not a good fit-perhaps because it focuses on languages outside Northeast India or doesn’t align with the volume’s technological and preservation themes-we’ll let you know quickly rather than sending it through the full review process.
Chapters that pass initial review are anonymized and sent to peer reviewers. The review process typically takes 6-8 weeks, though this timeline can vary depending on reviewer availability. We work with reviewers across different time zones and professional contexts, and we appreciate your patience during this period. If reviews are delayed beyond 8 weeks, we’ll contact you with an update.
Reviewers provide detailed feedback on your chapter’s strengths and areas for improvement. They may comment on theoretical framing, methodology, use of linguistic or technological terminology, engagement with relevant literature, clarity of writing, and the practical implications of your work. Their goal is not just to evaluate but to help strengthen your contribution to the field.
Once reviews are complete, our editorial team synthesizes the feedback and makes a decision. You’ll receive this decision along with anonymized reviewer comments. Most accepted chapters require at least minor revisions-this is normal in academic publishing and reflects our commitment to quality. The decision letter will clearly outline what revisions are needed and provide a deadline, typically 3-4 weeks depending on the scope of changes requested.
Decisions & Next Steps
We use three decision categories. An Accept with Minor Revisions means your chapter is fundamentally sound and will be published after you address specific feedback points-these might include clarifying certain arguments, updating references, reformatting data presentation, or expanding discussion of community implications. A Revise and Resubmit decision indicates that your chapter has potential but requires substantial revision before we can commit to publication. This might involve strengthening your methodology, engaging more deeply with relevant literature, reorganizing content for clarity, or providing more detailed analysis. We provide specific guidance on what needs to change and invite you to resubmit after revisions. Finally, a Reject decision means we cannot publish the chapter in its current form, either because it doesn’t align sufficiently with the volume’s focus or because fundamental issues with methodology, argumentation, or scope cannot be adequately addressed through revision.
If your chapter is rejected and you believe the decision was based on a misunderstanding of your work or overlooked important context, you may submit a brief appeal (no more than 500 words) to our editorial team within two weeks of the decision. Appeals should focus on specific concerns about the review process rather than general disagreement with reviewer opinions. We take appeals seriously but can only overturn decisions in cases where there is clear evidence of oversight or misinterpretation.
For accepted chapters requiring revisions, you’ll submit your revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response explaining how you addressed each reviewer comment. Our editorial team reviews these revisions to ensure concerns have been adequately addressed. Once revisions are approved, you’ll sign our copyright declaration form granting publication rights under a CC BY 4.0 license while retaining your copyright. Your chapter then moves to copyediting, where our team ensures consistency in formatting, citations, and style across the volume. You’ll have an opportunity to review copyedited versions before final publication.
We recognize that academic publishing can feel opaque, especially for authors new to the process or working outside traditional institutional contexts. Our editorial team is available throughout the review process to answer questions, clarify feedback, or discuss concerns. We’re committed to supporting authors from diverse backgrounds and ensuring that important research on Northeast India’s languages reaches the audiences who need it most.