By submitting a manuscript to be considered for publication in LingBaW. Linguistics Beyond and Within, the authors consent to the review process outlined below.
Each paper submitted for consideration is subjected to an initial screening process during which the Editorial Team establishes whether the author has followed the guidelines concerning its length, structure and layout (for more information, see SUBMISSIONS) as well as the scientific profile of the journal. At this stage, the text of the article is also screened for plagiarism using the iThenticate plagiarism checker.
The articles qualified for the review process are submitted for assessment by two independent reviewers. The reviewers are not connected with the scientific institution the author is affiliated to and they are not members of the Editorial Team.
The identities of the reviewers and the author are withheld from one another throughout the reviewing process (double-blind peer review process). Reviewers’ names are not disclosed in individual volumes. The list of all cooperating reviewers is provided on the journal website for full calendar years (see REVIEWERS).
Each review is prepared in writing in the form of a review report whose template is available below. All articles qualified for the review process are evaluated by the reviewers according to at least the following criteria: • Is the content new? • Is the subject matter worthy of investigation? • Are the sources cited relevant to the subject? • Are the sources cited up-to-date and complete? • Is the theoretical/methodology background described? • Are the data presented in an appropriate manner? • Are the arguments presented clearly? • Is the logic of presentation maintained? • Is the language of the text appropriate?
Each review report must contain an unambiguous conclusion of the reviewer regarding the conditions of accepting the article for publication or its rejection, which should be sufficiently substantiated in the review. Each review must result in one of the following decisions supported by the reviewer’s expert and objective opinion: a) Accepted for publication b) Accepted after minor revisions c) Accepted after major revisions d) Rejected
Reviews that clearly do not meet the substantive and formal requirements of a scientific review will not be taken into account, including reviews dominated by unmotivated critical opinions or unmotivated praise, devoid of a logical connection between the content and the conclusion, i.e., reviews that are definitely critical but with a positive conclusion, or vice versa.
If the two reviews give significantly contradictory recommendations, the paper is subjected to a third, final, review. If the two reviews give different recommendations, which are nevertheless not entirely contradictory, the decision whether to subject the paper to a third review is made by the member of the Editorial Team assigned to supervise the review process of a given submission.
The reviews should reach the author no later than three months after the submission date.
If the reviewers decide that the submission should be accepted for publication, the author is obliged to take into account the recommendations provided in the reviews and revise the article accordingly within up to six weeks from the receipt of the reviews. When the author is recommended to make corrections, the reviewers have the right to verify the revised manuscript.
The final decision qualifying the submission for publication is made by the member of the Editorial Team assigned to supervise the review process of a given submission in agreement with the Editor-in-Chief, based on the outcome of the review process and the revised manuscript provided by the author.
If a submission is rejected due to its incompatibility with the scientific profile of the journal, or if the reviews are clearly negative, the author is denied the right to appeal against this decision.
