Online peer review system

Language uses ScholarOne (https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/lsa-language) 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 on the ScholarOne website, and queries about the peer review process can be directed to the Editors (language@lsadc.org).

Guidelines for Language reviewers

Reviewers invited to review manuscripts for Language should follow the guidelines below when preparing their reviews.

Specific issues to consider in your review 

Here are some questions that you can consider during your review:

• Appropriateness of topic: Language is a generalist journal, and as such a publication in Language should have broad, general appeal. Please consider whether the manuscript meets this requirement. Although we do not expect that all technical details in an analysis should be accessible to a non-expert reader, the research should be presented in such a manner that the main arguments and relevance of the research are accessible to the broader readership of Language.
• Theoretical contribution: Does the manuscript make a meaningful contribution to the development of linguistic theory?
• Embedded in previous research: Does the manuscript engage appropriately with relevant research?
• Methodology: Is the research methodologically sound? Are the methods used appropriate to the research question investigated? Is the methodology described in sufficient detail? Does the research follow appropriate ethical guidelines?

Are arguments supported by appropriate data?

Special considerations when reviewing a Research Report: The Research Reports section of Language is similar to squibs sections found in other journals. Papers published in this section are typically shorter than those published in our regular research article section. They are also different in goal and scope, and as such should be evaluated differently. 

There are two main types of articles that appear in this section: 

1. Papers reporting on data that are relevant to theoretical questions but that by themselves do not warrant development into a stand-alone research article. Although we expect less of a major theoretical development from such a paper, the paper should still make it clear why and how the data are theoretically relevant, and should hence still be embedded in the relevant theoretical literature. 

2. Papers that offer a methodological innovation through the introduction of a new methodology or the novel application of an existing methodology. Such a paper may not itself address a major theoretical question, but the new methodology should have the potential to open up previously unexplored areas or questions of research, and should be of potential broad interest to the linguistics research community.

Suggested format 

A useful review has the following properties:

• Although we prefer that you enter your review directly into our online peer review system, you can also upload it as a PDF document.
• Reviews of around 2-4 pages are typical, and are more useful to the Editor and to authors than reviews that are much longer or shorter.
• Start with a succinct summary of the main arguments in the manuscript.
• Make a clear and specific recommendation for the Editor about the manuscript (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, reject).
• Review broader, general concerns with the argumentation and organization of the manuscript. It is most helpful to select three to four overarching themes on which to comment. Each of these can be illustrated with references to specific examples from the manuscript.
• You should feel free to also give a list of smaller, minor comments, although this is not required.
• Checking spelling and formatting are not the responsibility of reviewers, and you therefore do not have to comment on these (although you are free to do so, of course).

Ethical responsibilities 

Reviewers are bound by an obligation of confidentiality. You should not discuss or share the content for review with any other person, public platform, or AI tool, without first clearing it with the Editor. You can also not use any of the ideas in a manuscript in your own research.

Reviews should be conducted as objectively as possible, with criticism backed by logical arguments and evidence.

Reviewers should alert the Editor if the manuscript shows significant overlap with work published elsewhere.

Unprofessional remarks about authors, including but not limited to ad hominem remarks, should not be used. Reviews containing such remarks won't be edited by the Editor, but may be returned to the reviewer for correction. The Editor may also opt not to use such a review in the editorial process. Please write a review that is respectful and professional in tone.

Conflict of interest

The quality of our journal depends on the objectivity of the review process. We therefore ask that you recuse yourself from a review if you have a Conflict of Interest (COI). A COI may exist if you are a colleague, advisor or collaborator of an author of a manuscript you are asked to review. Sometimes, a COI can be resolved by sufficient time between the relationship that constituted the reason for the COI and the time of the request for a review. If at least two years have elapsed since the relevant relationship has ended (i.e., the author ceased being your colleague at least two years ago), we ask that you contact the Editor to confirm whether you are eligible as a reviewer. In a field as small as linguistics, it is unavoidable that you may be asked to review a manuscript submitted by someone you know. Merely knowing someone, however, does not usually constitute a COI. If you are in doubt about whether your relationship with an author may constitute a COI, contact the Editor for clarification.

Double-anonymous review 

We employ a double anonymous review process at Language, meaning that the identity of author(s) are not revealed to reviewers, and similarly the identity of reviewers are not revealed to authors. In order to maintain the objectivity of the review process to the extent possible, we ask that you not attempt to identify the author(s) of a manuscript through, for instance, an internet search. We also realize, however, that in a field as small as linguistics, it may often be possible for you to guess the mostly likely author(s) of a manuscript you are asked to review. We ask, however, that you not assume to know the identity of the author(s) - it is always possible that someone else may be working on the same topic unbeknownst to you.

Although we will never reveal the identity of a reviewer to the author(s) of a manuscript being evaluated, reviewers are free to sign their request if they prefer for the reviews not to be anonymous. For those manuscripts that are accepted for publication, the identity of the authors will of course become known to the reviewers upon publication of the manuscript.

Although all attempts are made to remove identifying information from file(s) associated with a submission, it is possible that some identifying information may still be present, for instance, in the metadata associated with a file. In order to maintain to the fullest extent possible the integrity of our review process, we request that you do not try to identify the author by any means, including by inspecting the metadata of a file.