Online peer review system

This journal uses ScholarOne (http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/blc) for online submission and peer review. ScholarOne is a “comprehensive workflow-management system for scholarly journals, books and conferences”. 

Further information on ScholarOne can be found here, and queries can be directed to the Editorial Assistants.

BLC Guidelines for reviewers

Reviewers are asked to provide structured feedback on the following areas. The goal is to ensure all manuscripts are evaluated thoroughly and consistently, highlighting strengths and identifying areas for improvement. 

Theoretical and empirical motivation:

• Does the manuscript clearly situate the study within existing theories of bilingualism, second-language acquisition, cognitive science, or psycholinguistics?
• Are the research questions, hypotheses, or objectives clearly stated and justified?
• Does the study address an important theoretical or empirical gap?
• Is the rationale for focusing on particular languages, populations, or bilingual profiles explained?
• Are connections made between the research question and broader questions in bilingualism, multilingualism, or cognitive science?

Literature review:

• Is the literature review comprehensive, current, and relevant to bilingualism, multilingualism, and related cognitive or linguistic phenomena?
• Does it clearly establish why the study is necessary and how it advances the field?
• Are key studies summarized accurately, including both convergent and divergent findings?
• Are differences in populations, linguistic structures, or experimental paradigms across studies adequately addressed?
• Are gaps in the literature explicitly identified, and is the study positioned to fill one or more of these gaps?

Methods and experimental design:

• Are participant characteristics described in detail (e.g., age, language proficiency, age of acquisition, language dominance, exposure, education)?
• Are inclusion/exclusion criteria justified and clearly reported?
• Are experimental materials, tasks, and procedures clearly described and appropriate to test the hypotheses?
• Is the design robust, controlling for potential confounds (e.g., language dominance, cross-language interference, prior exposure, practice effects)?
• Are ethical considerations addressed (e.g., IRB approval, informed consent)?
• Would another researcher be able to replicate the study based on the provided information?

Data analysis and interpretation:

• Are statistical analyses appropriate for the research questions and data type (e.g., mixed-effects models, longitudinal designs, psycholinguistic measures)?
• Are assumptions of the analyses clearly reported and addressed (e.g., normality, sphericity, independence)?
• Are results clearly presented, with appropriate tables, figures, and effect sizes?
• Are the conclusions justified by the results? Are interpretations separated from speculation?
• Are alternative explanations for the findings considered?
• Are potential biases in data collection or analysis acknowledged?

Contributions and implications/applications:

• Does the manuscript advance theoretical understanding of bilingualism, multilingualism, or cognitive mechanisms?
• Does it offer novel empirical findings, methodological innovations, or conceptual insights?
• Are the contributions discussed in the context of the broader literature?
• Does the study have implications for future research directions?
• Are potential educational, clinical, or policy applications of the findings discussed?

Limitations:

• Are study limitations explicitly acknowledged (e.g., sample size, participant diversity, generalizability, methodological constraints)?
• Are potential confounding factors, biases, or alternative interpretations addressed?
• Are the implications of these limitations discussed in a thoughtful and balanced way?