This content requires cookies. To view content please update your cookie preferences.
This content requires cookies. To view content please update your cookie preferences.
The Journal of Black Language and Culture (JBLAC) is the newest journal from the Linguistic Society of America (LSA) and aims to foster a transdisciplinary conversation on Black language and culture through a global, diasporic lens. It builds on the momentum from previous LSA publications and discussions, addressing a growing need for an inclusive scholarly venue dedicated to these topics. JBLAC welcomes submissions from a range of disciplines, including linguistics, Black studies, and gender studies, and seeks to provide an intellectual space for scholars whose work may otherwise be excluded from traditional linguistics outlets.
Your Role: Peer reviewers should conduct detailed evaluations of submitted manuscripts. They provide expert assessments of the quality, validity, and significance of the research. This includes reviewing manuscripts, providing feedback to authors, and recommending revisions or acceptance/rejection based on the manuscript’s merits. Reviewers are typically selected for their expertise in specific subject areas relevant to the submitted work.
This content requires cookies. To view content please update your cookie preferences.
*Please note: Suggestions for alternative reviewers are always welcome.
Conflict of interest: We ask that reviewers be forthright in their relationship to the author(s) of a given manuscript. Reviewers must review our ethics guide to learn about our Conflict of Interest (COI) Policy and other important ethical considerations needed for submission.
This content requires cookies. To view content please update your cookie preferences.
Reviewers for the Journal of Black Language and Culture (JBLAC) should accomplish two primary goals: (1) they shall summarize accurately but concisely the content of the work reviewed, and (2) they shall provide analytical evaluations of the work's quality and relevance to the JBLAC readership of teacher educators, educational researchers, and other education professionals.
Those who review for the Journal of Black Language and Culture (JBLAC) must adhere to the following journal policies.
First and foremost, reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts they receive. Information must not be used from the manuscript, in any way (e.g., citation, ideas, findings) while in the pre-publication process. After publication, we encourage reviewers to do so.
A primary focus of our journal is to present high-quality publications in a timely manner. Some journals may take up to two years to publish an article. We believe that this reduces their ability to advance the research of education. Our goal is to publish manuscripts within 6 months of their receipt. Thus, reviewers are asked to provide the editorial staff with their review within 4-6 weeks of receiving a manuscript. Reviewers who are not able to do so should inform the editorial staff.
Reviewers are asked to provide clear, useful and constructive feedback to authors. Regardless of whether a manuscript is published by JBLAC, it is our goal to provide the author(s) with recommendations to help the manuscript further its cause.
Journal content and/or methods should align with journal ethics and attune to JBLAC’s mission of justice, and/or liberation for Black communities across the African Diaspora.
The following information should precede each review article in the following format:
Full Title: Subtitle , edited by / by Author/s Name/s. City of Publication, State of Publication: Publisher, Year of Publication, xxx pp. $xx.xx, cloth or paper.
Reviewed by Reviewer's Name, Institution of Affiliation .
This content requires cookies. To view content please update your cookie preferences.
Reviews should not exceed three (3) typed, double-spaced pages, and should consider each of the following questions. The questions below are meant to serve as general guidelines for consideration when reviewing, not something that needs to be filled out line by line.
This content requires cookies. To view content please update your cookie preferences.
Topic and content:
Is the topic relevant for the journal?
Is the content important to the field?
Is the work original? (If not, please give references)
Title: Does the title reflect the contents of the article?
Abstract: To what extent does the abstract reflect aspects of the study: background, objectives, methods, results and conclusions?
Introduction / Background: Is the study rationale adequately described?
Objectives: Are the study objectives clearly stated and defined?
Methodology:
To what extent is the study design appropriate and adequate for the objectives?
Is the sample size appropriate and adequately justified?
Is the sampling technique appropriate and adequately described?
How well are the methods and instruments of data collection described?
How well are techniques to minimize bias/errors documented?
Ethical Consideration: How are issues related to ethics addressed, are they adequately described? (For human studies, has ethical approval been obtained?) Please refer to our Ethics guide for more information on addressing ethical considerations in your manuscript
Analysis and results:
Are the methods adequately described?
Are the methods of data analysis appropriate?
Do the results answer the research question?
Are the results credible?
Is statistical significance well documented (e.g. as confidence intervals or P-value)?
Are the findings presented logically with appropriate displays and explanations?
Discussion:
How well are the key findings stated?
To what extent have differences or similarities with other studies been discussed and reasons for these given?
Are the findings discussed in the light of previous evidence?
Are the implications of these findings clearly explained?
Is the interpretation warranted by and sufficiently derived from and focused on the data and results?
Conclusion(s): Do the results justify the conclusion(s)?
References:
Are the references appropriate and relevant?
Are they up to date?
Are there any obvious, important references that should have been included and have not been?
Do the references follow the recommended style?
Are there any errors?
Writing:
Is the paper written for a broad audience interested in Black Language and culture?
Is the paper presented logically (e.g. correct information in each section, logical flow of arguments)?
Are there problems with the grammar/spelling/punctuation / language? Grammar and punctuation should not determine acceptance or rejection but may be noted by the reviewer to help the author improve the clarity of their ideas, if the reviewer feels inclined to provide such feedback.
Audience
Which audience is this written for and does this audience align with the audience and mission of JBLAC?
This content requires cookies. To view content please update your cookie preferences.
Does the article address the teaching of linguistics or the use of linguistic concepts/theory in teaching?
How clearly does the author describe the pedagogical issue under investigation?
Does the author explain their positionality and institutional context and how that influences their approach to the pedagogical issue?
In what ways does the author discuss the applicability of this approach outside of their own context?
In what ways does the review of the literature situate the article in a broader pedagogical context, both within the field of linguistics as well as more broadly in the scholarship of teaching and learning?
In what ways does the author provide support or evidence for their proposed approach to the pedagogical issue?
How are issues of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI) discussed and addressed throughout the article, as an integral aspect of the criteria above, when relevant?
This content requires cookies. To view content please update your cookie preferences.
Does the article place the writer or topic in a broader linguistic, literary, historical, political, or social framework?
Is the theoretical or methodological framework, as well as the rhetoric and analysis, coherent and does it advance new ideas or concepts?
Is the argument well-contextualized, with major terms clearly and consistently defined?
Does the submission demonstrate sufficient awareness of relevant scholarship and previous criticism?
Does the manuscript offer an original intervention or perspective distinct from existing critical interpretations?
Is the prose clear, readable, and appropriately styled as a journal article rather than a dissertation chapter or other format?
Does the title accurately reflect the content and argument of the manuscript?
For Poetry, Fiction, Interviews, and Visual Art:
Does the creative work engage deeply with themes of Black language and culture in its expression?
How well does the work speak to a transdisciplinary audience while maintaining its artistic and cultural specificity?
How effectively does the piece reflect on or reimagine the lived experiences of Black people through its artistic lens?
Does the work account for ethical considerations, especially in the representation of Black people, communities, or historical and cultural contexts?
How well does the piece integrate interdisciplinary ideas, and does it propose new modes of thinking about or experiencing Black language and culture?
Is the creative work original, thought-provoking, and does it contribute meaningfully to the field?
Does the piece engage with contemporary issues and contribute new perspectives to the field?
Evaluation and Reporting
Reviewers should provide constructive feedback, whether or not they recommend publication. A comprehensive report should:
Summarize the main points of the manuscript.
Offer an impartial, critical judgment of its strengths and weaknesses.
Provide specific suggestions for improvement, especially if recommending revision and resubmission.
Reviewers’ Ethical Responsibilities
Maintain confidentiality about the manuscript and the peer review process.
Recuse yourself if you recognize the author's identity or have a conflict of interest.
Alert the editor to any overlap with existing work you are aware of.
Avoid citing or circulating the manuscript during the review process.
Notify the journal promptly if unable to complete the review within the requested time frame.
Anti-Discriminatory Principles
Reviewers are encouraged to:
Promote inclusive citation practices that represent diverse canons and perspectives, including scholars from various identities and backgrounds.
Respect lived experiences as valid sources of expertise, ensuring the work is evaluated on its terms without demanding it conforms to dominant methodologies.
Refrain from insisting on canonical citations that may perpetuate harmful or oppressive ideas.
Recognize that alternative methodologies or interdisciplinary approaches may be appropriate and valuable.