Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Ethiopian Journal of Language, Culture and Communication welcomes submission of empirical studies, literature reviews, book reviews, and short communications on issues pertaining to humanities (in particular literature, culture, journalism, communication and language education).

EJLCC covers the full scope from linguistics (including phonetics/phonology, morphology, lexicology, semantics, syntax, text linguistics, pragmatics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, lexicography, discourse analysis, corpus linguistics, etc.) on the one hand to language teaching on the other. One of the targets of this journal is to show the enormous performance of linguistics for efficient language teaching in both L1 and L2 contexts.

It also accepts manuscripts focusing on cultural and literary studies covering a wide range of research on folklore, oral literature, world literature, Ethiopian literature, contemporary literature, comparative literature, literary theories, literary criticism and narratology.

Regarding media and communication studies, EJLCC views the field as a coherent discipline in which all different aspects of communication are linked by common processes, structures, theories, and methods despite the diverse structure and interests, each representing a special subfield of communication processes and phenomena. To advance its commitment to excellence in communication scholarship, journalism, media research, and application, EJLCC accepts innovative and influential manuscripts that chart new courses in their respective fields of study.


Section Policies


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Book Reviews

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

 Reviewers’ guideline

Purpose of peer review

  1. Peer review is an essential part of scholarly publication and one of the major cornerstones of the scientific process. Peer review fulfils two key functions:  Ensures research is properly verified before being published.
  2. Improves the quality of the research: rigorous review by experts helps to improve key points and correct unintentional blunders

Preconditions to review a manuscript 

  1.  Does the article you are being asked to review truly match your expertise? Accept an invitation if you are competent to review the article. 
  2. Will you have sufficient time before the deadline stipulated in the invitation to conduct a thorough review? If not let the editor know immediately.

 Ethics in reviewing a manuscript

  •  Reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially, and the article you have been asked to review should not be disclosed to a third party.
  • By any means you should not attempt to contact the author.
  • Be aware that any recommendations you make will contribute to the final decision made by the editorial committee.

Checking originality

  • Is the article valuable and original in the field?
  •  Does it add to the standard of knowledge?
  •  Does the author/s properly acknowledge any information taken from others? 
Layout of the manuscript
  •   Is the article clearly laid out?
  •  Are all the key concepts (abstract, introduction, methodology, results and discussion, conclusions) are arranged and presented in the manuscript?

1. Title: Does the title clearly describe the article? Or does the title of the study fully reflect the content thereof?

 2. Abstract: Does it reflect the contents (objectives, methods, results and findings) of the article?

3. Introduction: Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors’ findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. This section has to reflect the followings:

  •  Does the work start with sufficient and relatively recent literature review?
  • Does the author attempt to make an exhaustive use of the most relevant and available sources for the problems under investigation?
  • Does the author describe accurately, and clearly the problem being investigated?
  • Is there any theoretical or practical value added to the existing knowledge and have these clearly and accurately described?

4. Methodology

  • Is the design suitable for answering the research questions posed?
  • Was the sampling appropriate and/or are proper sampling procedures followed?
  •  Have the samples used been adequately described, if applicable and are the selection criteria are valid
  • Are the techniques, procedures, and instruments used to collect the data sufficiently and exhaustively described? or does the author/s accurately explain how the data was collected and procedures followed? Have all the collected data been analyzed objectively, clearly and accurately?

5. Results and discussion: This part is where the author/s should explain in words/tables/figures what he/she discovered in the research. Some questions that should be posed are listed below:

  •  Are results been clearly discussed in a logical sequence?
  •   Are the statistics employed are correct/valid? If you are not comfortable and/or lack appropriate skills in statistics, be free and inform the editor when you submit your report.
  •   Are the results presented adequate to justify the conclusions reached by the author?
  •   Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research (discussions)?
  •   Does the article support or contradict previous findings/theories?
  •   Do the figures and tables inform the reader and are important part of the discussions?
  •  Do the figures/tables describe the data accurately?
  •   Are figures consistent, e.g. bars in charts are the same width, the scales on the axis are logical?  

6. Conclusion and the way forward

  •   Are the claims supported by the results, do they seem reasonable?
  •   Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?

7. References: Check the consistency of the citation style. Be sure that all the authors cited in the text are appeared in the references

Language: If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, while it may make it more difficult to understand the concepts, you do not need to correct the language. But you should bring this to the attention of the editor.

Reporting comments to the Editor

  •  Once you have completed your evaluation of the article the next step is to write up your report.
  • The report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing the points outlined in the preceding section. Comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including your name.
  •  Providing insight into any deficiencies is important.
  • You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments.
  • You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data.

You can write a report or use the table below showing comments per Section of Manuscript (write as much as needed. Table expands as you type).


General comment:






Literature Review













Conclusions and abstract



Description of study area



When you make a recommendation regarding an article, it is worth considering the categories the editor most likely uses for classifying the article.

a) Accept without revision

b)  Accept with minor revisions

c)   Accept with major revisions

d)  Rejected due to poor quality, or out of scope



Publication Frequency

This journal is published 2 times per year.


Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.