a putative evaluation scheme for critical appraisal of elt papers

Regarding the lack of consistency among elt journals to evaluate papers, this research delves into how journal reviewers address the issue of determining the optimum paper to be published. in other words, this study aims at proposing a putative scheme to evaluate the papers submitted to elt journals on a scientific and consistent basis. as such, 22 instructors and phd students, selected through purposive sampling, were interviewed utilizing semistructured interviews. the findings of the study were presented in the form of an evaluation scheme consisting of two major themes as two evaluation criteria: content-related and strategy-related criteria. the former includes paper originality, research contribution, innovation and novelty, and method inclusiveness; the latter consists of succinctness, scene-setting adequacy, critical synthesis and analogy, implicational justification, and efficacy and consistency. implicationally, the results of this study demonstrates that reviewers across diverse elt journals have substantial common criteria for paper publishing, that the ties uniting the elt journals seeking to publish articles are strong, and that the potential for future elt research regarding how authors inform one another on the criteria is correspondingly robust and consistent.