Contributions of Saudi Institutions in Applied Linguistics’ Journals Indexed in SSCI: Perspectives from Academics and Journals’ Editors

Mohammed Ali Mohsen


There is a new tendency for institutions to augment their publications in journals indexed in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI). Non-native English researchers may find it hard to get their submissions published in applied linguistics journals that are solely indexed in SSCI, which are known for their high rate of rejection. This could minimize the opportunity for researchers to get their manuscripts accepted for publication. This paper aims to collect data for academics’ perceptions of Saudi institutions to see their attitudes towards submitting and publishing in these journals. The article also aims to check the perceptions of journals’ editors on the submissions affiliated to Saudi universities to check the rate of rejection and the main reasons that lie behind the rejection. Thirty seven academics responded to an online survey designed to gauge their perceptions about submitting and publishing in applied linguistics journals indexed in SSCI. Academics perceive that publishing in such journals is difficult due to the high rate of rejection, long time of turnaround review, and a stringent peer review. Editors—those who responded to another survey—reported that a combination of outdated issues being investigated, poor research design and the lack of generalizability of research findings are the main reasons for rejecting submissions from Saudi academic institutions. On the bases of the study findings, limitations and tips for future studies are highlighted.


Perceptions, Web of Science, Social Science Citation Index, applied linguistics

Full Text:



Astruc, L., Gao, X., Mercer, S., & Stickle, U., (2016). Editorial December 2015. System, 56.

Byrnes, H. (2010). The changing scene for publishing in applied linguistics journals: views from editors. The Modern language Journal, 94(4), 636–664.

Egbert, J. (2007). Quality analysis of journals in TESOL and applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1) 57-71.

Ho, Y.S. (2013), The top-cited research works in the Science Citation Index Expanded. Scientometrics,94(3), 1297-1312.

Lee, L. (2014). Publish or perish: The myth and reality of academic publishing. Language Teaching, 47, 250- 261 doi:10.1017/S0261444811000504

Long, X., Huang, J.Z. & Ho, Y.S. (2014), A historical review of classic articles in surgery field. American Journal of Surgery, 208(5), 841-849.

Rojas-Sola, J.I. and Aguilera-Garcia, A.I. (2015), Global bibliometric analysis of the ‘mining & mineral processing’ subject category from the Web of Science (1997-2012). Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Review, 36(6), 349-369.

Smith, B., & Lafford, B. A. (2009). The Evaluation of scholarly activity in computer-assisted language learning. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 868-883.

Times Higher Education (2016). World University Rankings 2015-2016. Retrieved from!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank_label/sort_order/asc/cols/rank_only

Web of Science (2016). WEB OF SCIENCE CATEGORIES: (LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS OR LINGUISTICS ) Timespan: 2010-2014. Indexes: SSCI. Retrieved from

Web of Science (n.d). The Thompson Reuters Impact Factor. Retrieved from

Wong, E., Tam, W., Wong, F., & Cheung, A. (2013), Citation classics in nursing journals: The top 50 most frequently cited articles from 1956 to 2011. Nursing Research, 62(5), 344-351.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.