Language Policy

About This Journal

Aims and scope
Language Policy is relevant to scholars, students, specialists, educators, and policymakers working in the fields of applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, language teaching and learning, and related fields. The journal aims to publish empirical studies that cover a range of language policy related cases, situations, and regions worldwide while having a substantial theoretical underpinning that contributes to new understandings in the field.

The editors remain interested in papers that explore language policy practices and processes at all levels, including by governments but also in schools, workplaces, families, health services, media and other institutional sites. Rather than just description and/or evaluation of policies, Language Policy seeks high-quality research that is empirically driven, allows us to understand ongoing processes of social change, and contributes to theory-building. We welcome research that is grounded in nuanced understandings of power that move away from its conceptualisation as something located in one place (e.g. a governmental body) and exercised via policymaking, towards recognition of power as a more diffuse, anonymous network that is not limited to state politics alone. We are also interested in contributions that describe and critique technologies of governmentality and forms of language policing which enable the daily regulation of communicative practices and speakers across a wide range of social domains, with a focus on the consequences for social groups’ unequal access to spaces and various material and symbolic resources.

The journal seeks researchers’ vigilance in unsettling the epistemic traces of long-standing projects of capitalism, colonialism and white supremacy in their own work. We look forward to receiving contributions to the journal that press the boundaries of the field and reconsider what it is that we are actually fighting for in language policy research and activism. We also encourage papers informed through interdisciplinary work within related fields such as linguistics, education (inclusive of bilingual education), anthropology, sociology, political science, economics, law, history, ecology, and geography. Language Policy is interested in accounts focused on:

Language policies, practices, and processes involving governments and governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, business enterprises, public and private institutions, community organizations, families, and other entities, with a critical perspective (not only descriptive);
The enactment, promotion and management of language (education) policy (who, what, why, and how) in local, institutional, national, and global contexts, with attention to public spaces, cyberspace and the broader language ecology (e.g., linguistic landscapes, sociocultural and ethnographic perspectives on language policy);
The development, implementation, and effects of language policies and regimes of knowledge about language and speakerhood, including implications for speakers of minoritized languages, endangered languages, and lingua francas; and
Attempts made by minoritized groups to develop, establish, contest, disrupt, appropriate or modify language policies and the forms of knowledge and categories about languages and speakers that these bring about.
The journal editors occasionally commission guest-edited special issues on the journal’s central themes.


Communicate with respect
At Grey Bridge we believe that only through relationships based upon mutual respect can we build trust and deliver quality publishing products and services to the communities we serve. Our staff are expected to behave professionally and respectfully at all times when engaging with authors, reviewers and readers. Likewise, we expect the same standards of behavior from the academic community and the public in their interactions with our staff. We do not tolerate aggressive behavior, or any form of harassment, bullying or discrimination directed against Grey Bridge staff. We reserve the right to bring serious cases to the attention of employers or local authorities, if needed, and may refuse to interact, or do business, with individuals who repeatedly or seriously violate this policy.


Authorship definition

These guidelines describe authorship principles and good authorship practices to which prospective authors should adhere to.

Authorship clarified
Grey Bridge assumes that all authors agreed with the content and that all gave explicit consent to submit and that they obtained consent from the responsible authorities at the institute/organization where the work has been carried out, before the work is submitted.

The Publisher does not prescribe the kinds of contributions that warrant authorship. It is recommended that authors adhere to the guidelines for authorship that are applicable in their specific research field. In absence of specific guidelines it is recommended to adhere to the following guidelines a,b:

All authors whose names appear on the submission

made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work;
drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content;
approved the version to be published; and
agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Grey Bridge journals encourage collaboration with colleagues in the locations where the research is conducted, and expect their inclusion as co-authors when they fulfill all authorship criteria described above. Contributors who do not meet all criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgements section

Disclosures and declarations

All authors are requested to include information regarding sources of funding, financial or non-financial interests, study-specific approval by the appropriate ethics committee for research involving humans and/or animals, informed consent if the research involved human participants, and a statement on welfare of animals if the research involved animals (as appropriate).

The decision whether such information should be included is not only dependent on the scope of the journal, but also the scope of the article. Work submitted for publication may have implications for public health or general welfare and in those cases it is the responsibility of all authors to include the appropriate disclosures and declarations.


Data transparency

All authors are requested to make sure that all data and materials as well as software application or custom code support their published claims and comply with field standards. Please note that journals may have individual policies on (sharing) research data in concordance with disciplinary norms and expectations. Please check the Instructions for Authors of the Journal that you are submitting to for specific instructions.


Role of the Corresponding Author

One author is assigned as Corresponding Author and acts on behalf of all co-authors and ensures that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately addressed

The Corresponding Author is responsible for the following requirements:

ensuring that all listed authors have approved the manuscript before submission, including the names and order of authors;
managing all communication between the Journal and all co-authors, before and after publication*;
providing transparency on re-use of material and mention any unpublished material (for example manuscripts in press) included in the manuscript in a cover letter to the Editor;
making sure disclosures, declarations and transparency on data statements from all authors are included in the manuscript as appropriate (see above).
*The requirement of managing all communication between the journal and all co-authors during submission and proofing may be delegated to a Contact or Submitting Author. In this case please make sure the Corresponding Author is clearly indicated in the manuscript.


Author contributions

Please check the Instructions for Authors of the Journal that you are submitting to for specific instructions regarding contribution statements.

In absence of specific instructions and in research fields where it is possible to describe discrete efforts, the Publisher recommends authors to include contribution statements in the work that specifies the contribution of every author in order to promote transparency. These contributions should be listed at the end of the submission.

Examples of such statement(s) are shown below:

Free text:

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by [full name], [full name] and [full name]. The first draft of the manuscript was written by [full name] and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.




Affiliation

The primary affiliation for each author should be the institution where the majority of their work was done. If an author has subsequently moved, the current address may additionally be stated. Addresses will not be updated or changed after publication of the article.


Changes to authorship

Authors are strongly advised to ensure the correct author group, the Corresponding Author, and the order of authors at submission. Any changes to the author list after submission, such as a change in the order of the authors or the deletion or addition of authors, must be approved by every author. Changes of authorship by adding or deleting authors, and/or changes in Corresponding Author, and/or changes in the sequence of authors are not permitted after acceptance of a manuscript.

Please note that author names will be published exactly as they appear on the accepted submission.

Please make sure that the names of all authors are present and correctly spelled, and that addresses and affiliations are current.

Adding and/or deleting authors at revision stage are generally not permitted, but in some cases it may be warranted. Reasons for these changes in authorship should be explained. Approval of the change during revision is at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief. Please note that journals may have individual policies on adding and/or deleting authors during revision stage.


Author name change

An author who has changed their name for reasons such as gender transition or religious conversion may request for their name, pronouns and other relevant biographical information to be corrected on papers published prior to the change. The author can choose for this correction to happen silently, in which case there will be no note flagging the change on either the pdf or the html of the paper, or alternatively they may do so by a formal public Author Correction.

For authors who’ve changed their name and wish to correct it on their published works, please see GBCS Contact Form: Inclusive Name Change Policy : Grey Bridge Support.


Author identification

Authors are strongly recommended to use their ORCID ID when submitting an article for consideration or acquire an ORCID ID via the submission process.


Deceased or incapacitated authors

For cases in which a co-author dies or is incapacitated during the writing, submission, or peer-review process, and the co-authors feel it is appropriate to include the author, co-authors should obtain approval from a (legal) representative which could be a direct relative.


Confidentiality

Authors should treat all communication with the Journal as confidential which includes correspondence with direct representatives from the Journal such as Editors-in-Chief and/or Handling Editors and reviewers’ reports unless explicit consent has been received to share information.




Authorship issues or disputes

In the case of an authorship dispute during peer review or after acceptance and publication, the Journal will not be in a position to investigate or adjudicate. Authors will be asked to resolve the dispute themselves. If they are unable the Journal reserves the right to withdraw a manuscript from the editorial process or in case of a published paper raise the issue with the authors’ institution(s) and abide by its guidelines.


Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Grey Bridge is monitoring ongoing developments in this area closely and will review (and update) these policies as appropriate.

1. AI Authorship

2. Generative AI Images

3. AI use by peer reviewers



AI Authorship
Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, do not currently satisfy our authorship criteria (imprint editorial policy link). Notably an attribution of authorship carries with it accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs. Use of an LLM should be properly documented in the Methods section (and if a Methods section is not available, in a suitable alternative part) of the manuscript. The use of an LLM (or other AI-tool) for “AI assisted copy editing” purposes does not need to be declared. In this context, we define the term "AI assisted copy editing" as AI-assisted improvements to human-generated texts for readability and style, and to ensure that the texts are free of errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and tone. These AI-assisted improvements may include wording and formatting changes to the texts, but do not include generative editorial work and autonomous content creation. In all cases, there must be human accountability for the final version of the text and agreement from the authors that the edits reflect their original work.

Generative AI Images
The fast moving area of generative AI image creation has resulted in novel legal copyright and research integrity issues. As publishers, we strictly follow existing copyright law and best practices regarding publication ethics. While legal issues relating to AI-generated images and videos remain broadly unresolved, Springer Nature journals are unable to permit its use for publication.

Exceptions:

Images/art obtained from agencies that we have contractual relationships with that have created images in a legally acceptable manner.
Images and videos that are directly referenced in a piece that is specifically about AI and such cases will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
The use of generative AI tools developed with specific sets of underlying scientific data that can be attributed, checked and verified for accuracy, provided that ethics, copyright and terms of use restrictions are adhered to.
*All exceptions must be labelled clearly as generated by AI within the image field.

As we expect things to develop rapidly in this field in the near future, we will review this policy regularly and adapt it if necessary.

NOTE: Examples of image types covered by this policy include: video and animation, including video stills; photography; illustration such as scientific diagrams, photo-illustrations and other collages, and editorial illustrations such as drawings, cartoons or other 2D or 3D visual representations. Not included in this policy are text-based and numerical display items, such as: tables, flow charts and other simple graphs that do not contain images. Please note that not all AI tools are generative. The use of non-generative machine learning tools to manipulate, combine or enhance existing images or figures should be disclosed in the relevant caption upon submission to allow a case-by-case review.

AI use by peer reviewers
Peer reviewers play a vital role in scientific publishing. Their expert evaluations and recommendations guide editors in their decisions and ensure that published research is valid, rigorous, and credible. Editors select peer reviewers primarily because of their in-depth knowledge of the subject matter or methods of the work they are asked to evaluate. This expertise is invaluable and irreplaceable. Peer reviewers are accountable for the accuracy and views expressed in their reports, and the peer review process operates on a principle of mutual trust between authors, reviewers and editors. Despite rapid progress, generative AI tools have considerable limitations: they can lack up-to-date knowledge and may produce nonsensical, biased or false information. Manuscripts may also include sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared outside the peer review process. For these reasons we ask that, while Grey Bridge explores providing our peer reviewers with access to safe AI tools, peer reviewers do not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools.

If any part of the evaluation of the claims made in the manuscript was in any way supported by an AI tool, we ask peer reviewers to declare the use of such tools transparently in the peer review report.

Data Availability Statement
Introduction

Reproducibility of scientific claims is integral to the integrity of published research. At the heart of research claims is the data from which results are obtained and conclusions are drawn. Without access to the original data, scientific claims can be difficult (if not impossible) to replicate. And if a study cannot be reproduced, how can we with certainty draw any subsequent conclusions? Sharing of research data strengthens scientific integrity and an inclusion of a data availability statement (DAS) will immediately satisfy if and how data can be made available to a third-party researcher. The benefits of mandatory DAS include encouraging the reuse of data, as well as enhancing compliance with relevant funder and institutional policies; this was the basis for the Grey Bridge research journals introduction of mandatory DAS in 2016. [1]

Many funding agencies, including the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Wellcome Trust, Research Councils UK (RCUK) and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation require data sharing as a condition of grants. Some of these funding agency policies, such as the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)’s policy also requires statements about data accessibility and links to data to be included in articles. In addition, Medline now requires the inclusion of a data sharing policy statement on the journal website.

Since 2016, Grey Bridge has been rolling out standard data policies across our journals. All Grey Bridge journals now have a policy requiring data availability statements. Mandated data availability statements will be rolled out to Grey Bridge journals, please check individual submission guidelines for the status of the implementation and whether the journal is currently mandating these statements.



Policy

Mandatory data availability statements consolidate information on availability of data associated with the manuscript, whether data are in repositories, available on request, included with supplementary information or figure source data files.

This policy requires all Grey Bridge journals to adopt a research data policy which requires data availability statements. This policy does not introduce any data sharing mandates, but simply aims to make the availability of the data transparent.

Upon implementation of this policy, all Grey Bridge journals will satisfy the requirements of Level 1 ToP (Transparency and Openness Promotion) Guidelines. Grey Bridge was an early signatory in this initiative that aims to promote transparency and reproducibility in research. The journals will also satisfy tier three requirements as set out in a multi-publisher data research policy framework, which we anticipate being endorsed by the STM Association in 2019.

Introduction

All research articles, and most other article types, published in Grey Bridge journals undergo peer review. This usually involves review by at least two independent, expert peer reviewers. Individual journals may differ in their peer review processes (e.g. open or blinded); refer to the specific journal's Ethics and Disclosures page for details.


Peer review policy

All submissions to Grey Bridge journals are first reviewed for completeness and only then sent to be assessed by an Editor who will decide whether they are suitable for peer review. Where an Editor is on the author list or has any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to oversee peer review. Editors will consider the peer-reviewed reports when making a decision, but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein. A concern raised by a single peer reviewer or the Editor themself may result in the manuscript being rejected. Authors receive peer review reports with the editorial decision on their manuscript.




Peer reviewer selection

Peer reviewer selection is critical to the publication process. It is based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, conflict of interest and previous performance. Speed, thoroughness, sound reasoning and collegiality are highly desirable.

Editor Responsibilities (from the Grey Bridge Code of Conduct for Editors):
● Editor(s) are expected to obtain a minimum of two peer reviewers for manuscripts reporting primary research or secondary analysis of primary research. It is recognized that in some exceptional circumstances, particularly in niche and emerging fields, it may not be possible to obtain two independent peer reviewers. In such cases, Editor(s) may wish to make a decision to publish based on one peer review report. When making a decision based on one report, Editor(s) are expected to only do so if the peer review report meets the standards set out below.
● Peer review reports should be in English and provide constructive critical evaluations of the authors’ work, particularly in relation to the appropriateness of methods used, whether the results are accurate, and whether the conclusions are supported by the results. Editorial decisions should be based on peer reviewer comments that meet these criteria rather than on recommendations made by short, superficial peer reviewer reports which do not provide a rationale for the recommendations.
● Editor(s) are expected to independently verify the contact details of reviewers suggested by authors or other third parties. Institutional email addresses should be used to invite peer reviewers wherever possible. Each manuscript should be reviewed by at least one reviewer who was not suggested by the author.
● Manuscripts that do not report primary research or secondary analysis of primary research, such as Editorials, Book Reviews, Commentaries or Opinion articles, may be accepted without peer review. Such manuscripts should be assessed by the Editor(s) if the topic is in the area of expertise of the Editor(s); if the topic is not in area of expertise of the Editor(s), such manuscripts should be assessed by at least one independent expert reviewer or Editorial Board Member.


In the rare, exceptional, occasions when two independent peer reviewers cannot be secured, the Editor may act as a second reviewer or make a decision using only one report.
● Editor must have a sufficient amount of knowledge in the area if acting as a second reviewer
● Editor should sign the review to ensure transparency in the peer review process
● Any single reports should be detailed and thorough
● The first reviewer should be senior, on topic and have published recently on the subject


Potential peer reviewers should inform the Editor of any possible conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript. Communications between Editors and peer reviewers contain confidential information that should not be shared with third parties.


Some journals allow authors to suggest potential reviewers, and to request that some be excluded from consideration (usually a maximum of two people/research groups). Editors will consider these requests, but are not obliged to fulfill them. The Editor's decision on the choice of peer reviewers is final.


Authors should not recommend recent collaborators or colleagues who work in the same institution as themselves. Authors can suggest peer reviewers in the cover letter. Information which will help the Editor verify the identity and expertise of the reviewer will be required. This includes the suggested reviewer’s institutional email address and ORCID or Scopus ID.



Peer reviewer diversity

Grey Bridge journals are committed to diversity, equity and inclusion and we strive for diverse demographic representation of peer reviewers. Editors are strongly encouraged to consider geographical regions, gender identities, racial/ethnic groups, and other groups when inviting peer reviewers.


Peer reviewer misconduct

Providing false or misleading information—for example, identity theft and suggesting fake peer-reviewers—will result in rejection of the manuscript, further investigation in line with Grey Bridge misconduct policy, and notification to the authors’ institutions/employers. Grey Bridge journals are members of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). More information about peer reviewer fraud/falsification can be found here.


Peer review models

● Open peer review: Peer reviewers' names are included on the peer review reports. If the manuscript is published, reports with peer reviewer names are published online alongside the article(on rare occasions, information from the pre-publication history may not be available for a specific article). Authors are aware of the peer reviewers’ names during the peer-review process and vice versa. There should not be direct correspondence between authors and peer reviewers; communication is mediated by the Editor.


● Transparent peer review: If the manuscript is published, the peer review reports appear online alongside the article. Names of peer reviewers are not published. On rare occasions, information from the pre-publication history may not be available for a specific article.


● Blinded peer review: Most journals use a single-blind peer review process; that is, author identities are known to peer reviewers, but peer reviewers identities are not revealed to the authors. In double-blind peer review, identities of neither authors nor peer reviewers are disclosed; peer review mediated by Research Square is double-blind. The pre-publication history of articles is not made available online.


Peer reviewer guidance

The primary purpose of peer review is providing the Editor with the information needed to reach a fair, evidence-based decision that adheres to the journal’s editorial criteria. Review reports should also help authors revise their paper such that it may be accepted for publication. Reports accompanied by a recommendation to reject the paper should explain the major weaknesses of the research; this will help the authors prepare their manuscript for submission to a different journal.


Peer reviewers should adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers.


Confidential comments to the Editor are welcome, but they must not contradict the main points in the report for the authors.


Peer reviewers should assess papers exclusively against the journal’s criteria for publication.


The following conventions should be respected:

Reviewers should review the peer review policy of the Journal before revealing their reviewer role.
Reviews should be conducted objectively.
Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate, as are defamatory/libelous remarks.
Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references.
Reviewers should declare any potential competing interests.
Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts with which they believe they have a competing interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of material supplied to them and not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their own work.
Any reviewer who wants to pass a peer review invitation onto a colleague must contact the journal in the first instance.
Concerns relating to these points, or any aspect of the review process, should be raised with the editorial team.


We ask reviewers the following types of questions, to provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript:

Key results: Please summarize what you consider to be the outstanding features of the work.
Validity: Does the manuscript have flaws which should prohibit its publication? If so, please provide details.
Originality and significance: If the conclusions are not original, please provide relevant references.
Data & methodology: Please comment on the validity of the approach, quality of the data and quality of presentation. Please note that we expect our reviewers to review all data, including any extended data and supplementary information. Is the reporting of data and methodology sufficiently detailed and transparent to enable reproducing the results?
Appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties: All error bars should be defined in the corresponding figure legends; please comment if that’s not the case. Please include in your report a specific comment on the appropriateness of any statistical tests, and the accuracy of the description of any error bars and probability values.
Conclusions: Do you find that the conclusions and data interpretation are robust, valid and reliable?
Inflammatory material: Does the manuscript contain any language that is inappropriate or potentially libelous?
Suggested improvements: Please list suggestions that could help strengthen the work in a revision.
References: Does this manuscript reference previous literature appropriately? If not, what references should be included or excluded? Attempts at reviewer-coerced citation will be noted against your record in our database.
Clarity and context: Is the abstract clear, accessible? Are abstract, introduction and conclusions appropriate?
Please indicate any particular part of the manuscript, data, or analyses that you feel is outside the scope of your expertise, or that you were unable to assess fully.
Please address any other specific questions asked by the editor.
Please make sure to check if author(s) have followed our Sex and Gender in Research (SAGER Guidelines).
Reviewers should alert the Editor-in-Chief/Grey Bridge (contact person from respective journal) if they wish to make an allegation of publication or research misconduct, e.g. plagiarism or image manipulation, about an article they are reviewing.
Before you submit your report, please take a moment to read it through and put yourself in the place of the authors. How would you feel if you received this report? Would the tone offend you? Is it courteous and professional? Are there unnecessary personal remarks or antagonistic comments about the authors or their competitors? Please note that the Editor reserves the right to remove any inappropriate language from your report.

Reports do not necessarily need to follow this specific order but should document the peer reviewer’s thought process. Some journals have a set of questions that reviewers will need to specifically address. All statements should be justified and argued in detail, naming facts and citing supporting references, commenting on all aspects that are relevant to the manuscript and that the reviewers feel qualified commenting on. Not all of the above aspects will necessarily apply to every paper, due to discipline-specific standards. When in doubt about discipline-specific peer-reviewing standards, reviewers can contact the Editor for guidance.

Grey Bridge journals are committed to diversity, equity and inclusion. The peer reviewer should flag any concerns that may affect this commitment.


It is our policy to remain neutral with respect to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations, and the naming conventions used in maps and affiliation are left to the discretion of authors. Peer reviewers should not, therefore, request authors to make any changes to such unless it is critical to the clarity of the academic content of a manuscript.


Grey Bridge journals are committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the research community as a whole. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed. If reviewers anticipate a delay, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternatives.



Peer reviewer recognition

Grey Bridge is committed to recognizing the invaluable service performed by our dedicated peer reviewers. As part of our appreciation program, we offer our peer reviewers the opportunity to credit their ORCID and Publons (where available) profiles with verified peer review data transmitted directly from the submission system at the time of report submission.

Abstracted and indexed in
ANVUR
Arts & Humanities Citation Index
BFI List
Baidu
CLOCKSS
CNKI
CNPIEC
Current Contents/Arts and Humanities
Dimensions
EBSCO
ERIC
ERIH PLUS
Google Scholar
MLA International Bibliography
Naver
Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals and Series
OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service
Portico
ProQuest
SCImago
SCOPUS
Social Science Citation Index
TD Net Discovery Service
Wanfang
eLibrary.ru

Collections and Special Issues
Collections and Special Issues may include original primary research Articles, Reviews, and other content types published by the journal.

All manuscripts submitted to Grey Bridge Journal Collections or Special Issues are assessed according to the journal’s standard editorial criteria and are subject to all of the standard Editorial Policies, including the Competing Interests policy. The content of the submission will also be assessed to ensure it lies within the scope of the Collection or Special Issue.

All submissions that meet the journal’s criteria for peer review will undergo the journal’s standard peer review process. Please visit the journal’s website for information on the review process used. The peer review of any submissions for which the Editors of the Collection or Special Issue, have competing interests is handled by another Editor, who has no competing interests, to ensure the evaluation of these submissions is objective.

Editorial Board

Editorial board
Book Review Editors
Florence Bonacina-Pugh PhD
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Alsu Tuktamyshova PhD
Kazan State Technical University named after A. N. Tupolev, Kazan, Russia
Editors-In-Chief
David Cassels Johnson PhD
University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States

Angel M. Y. Lin PhD
Education University of Hong Kong, Tai Po, Hong Kong
Associate Editors
Kristof Savski PhD
Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand
Editorial Board Members
Ashraf Abdelhay PhD
Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, Doha, Qatar

Muhammad Hasan Amara PhD
Beit Berl College, Kfar Saba, Israel

Patricia Baquedano-López PhD
University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States

Jasone Cenoz PhD
University of the Basque Country, Leioa, Spain

Eva Codó PhD
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain

Xiao Lan Curdt-Christiansen PhD
University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom

Nelson Flores PhD
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States

Xuesong (Andy) Gao PhD
UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Pedro Moraes Garcez PhD
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil

Durk Gorter PhD
University of the Basque Country, Leioa, Spain

Obaidul Hamid PhD
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

Christine Hélot PhD
Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

Kathleen Heugh PhD
University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia

Francis M. Hult PhD
University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, United States

Ahmed Kabel PhD
Al Akhawayn University, Ifrane, Morocco

Nkonko M. Kamwangamalu PhD
Howard University, Washington, United States

Busi Makoni PhD
Pennsylvania State University, State College, United States

Stephen May PhD
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Anne-Marie Truscott de Mejía PhD
Universidad de Los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia

Tommaso M. Milani PhD
Pennsylvania State University, State College, United States; University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Sarah C. K. Moore PhD
University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, United States

Trish Morita-Mullaney PhD
Purdue University West Lafayette, West Lafayette, United States

Leigh Oakes PhD
Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom

Tadhg Ó hIfearnáin PhD
Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway, Galway, Ireland

Verónica Pájaro PhD
University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

Alastair Pennycook PhD
University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Prem Phyak PhD
Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, United States

Sari Pietikäinen PhD
University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

Ingrid Piller PhD
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

Lodewyk Theodorus du Plessis PhD
University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa

Shen Qi PhD
Tongji University, Shanghai, China

Rita Silver PhD
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore; National Institute of Education, Jurong West, Singapore

Yasir Suleiman PhD
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

Ruanni Tupas PhD
University College London, London, United Kingdom

Viniti Vaish PhD
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

Guadalupe Valdés PhD
Stanford University, Stanford, United States

Piet Van Avermaet PhD
Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Terrence G. Wiley PhD
Arizona State University, Tempe, United States

Virginia Zavala PhD
Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, Lima, Peru
Editorial Assistants
Kyoyoung Chang MEd
University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States

Chunhong Liu MPhil
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada
Emeritus Editors
Ofelia García PhD
City University of New York, New York, United States, retired 2018

Helen Kelly-Holmes PhD
University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland, retired 2019

Kendall King PhD
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States, retired 2015

Kate Menken Ed.D
City University of New York, New York, United States, retired 2024

Miguel Pérez-Milans PhD
University College London, London, United Kingdom, retired 2024

Elana Shohamy PhD
Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, retired 2015

Bernard Spolsky PhD
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, deceased 2022

Maria Rosa Garrido

Abstract This article traces the evolution of the ideological construction of elite multilingualism, with a focus on the values accorded to French and English, under transforming socioeconomic and institutional conditions at the International Commit...

Eiman Mustafawi, Kassim Shaaban, Tariq Khwaileh & Katsiaryna Ata

Abstract This study investigates the linguistic attitudes and perceptions of Qatar University students regarding the utility and vitality of the two languages that define the education and communication scenes in Qatar, namely, Arabic and English. I...

James Simpson & Ann-Marie Hunter

Abstract This article is about current policy in the coordination of opportunities for adult migrants in England to learn English. People who move to a different country experience a need to learn the dominant language of their new environment, to s...