Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

All submissions are initially assessed by an Editor, who decides whether or not the article fits the scope of the journal and is suitable for peer review. Submissions considered suitable are assigned to three independent experts, who assess the article for clarity, validity, and sound methodology. During the submission process the author is permitted to provide details of individuals that they believe are highly suitable, or unsuitable for consideration as a peer reviewer. The decision whether to use or discount these suggestions lies entirely with the editor.  

The journal operates a double-blind peer review process, meaning that authors and reviewers remain anonymous for the review process. The review period is expected to take around four weeks. Reviewers are asked to provide formative feedback, even if an article is not deemed suitable for publication in the journal.

Based on the reviewer reports the editor will make a recommendation for rejection, minor or major revisions, or acceptance. Overall editorial responsibility rests with the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, who is supported by an expert, international Editorial Board.

Reviewing matters

Reviewers have a crucial responsibility in the decision process leading from submission to publication. Here are some things that you as reviewers can do to help us editors improve and accelerate that process.

1. Please answer the invitation to review as promptly as possible, especially if you cannot do the review. That will allow the editor to invite a new reviewer and considerably shorten the submission-to-decision (StD) time. If you don't answer quickly, the editors will wait for your answer for 10-15 days before inviting a new reviewer. When a succession of invited reviewers fail to answer timely, StD time is significantly increased.

2. If you cannot do the review, it would be extremely helpful for us if you could suggest alternative reviewers. The editors invited you because they think you are best qualified to review that paper. That also means that you are probably better qualified than the editors to think of alternative reviewers. Help the editors by suggesting alternative reviewers: reviewing and publishing is a shared responsibility of the scholarly community. Also keep in mind that a reviewer who quickly declines but provides the editor with the names of alternative reviewers is much more helpful than a reviewer who promises a review that never materializes or requires several reminders to deliver it.

3. Like most journals, Glossa has a policy of double-blind peer review. In principle, the reviewers do not know the author, and the paper is anonymously presented to the reviewers. Admittedly, double-blind peer review is not easily achieved in practice. In small or intersecting subfields, most scholars know each other and can easily identify who wrote the paper. We are aware of the debate around Open Peer Review. However, this is still very controversial. Nevertheless, we allow reviewers to disclose their identity to authors if they think that this will help improve the paper by a personal discussion. We ask reviewers who wish to sign their reviews to carefully take into account before doing so the power differential that may exist between themselves and the author of the paper.

4. If you know the author, that does not necessarily exclude you from being a reviewer. You just need to ask yourself if you can write a fair review of the paper in view of your relationship with the author. That is also why we ask reviewers to state that they have no competing interests. A competing interest refers to a secondary interest that an author might have besides the scientific quality of the paper, such as personal rivalry or an interest in the success of the author. If you have collaborated with the author on related research, or are in a supervisor-supervisee relationship with the author, then it is best to recuse yourself. When in doubt, ask the editor for advice.

5. If you have reviewed the paper before for a different journal, that does not automatically disqualify you from reviewing it again. More in particular, if you notice that the paper has not changed from the last time you saw it, please inform the editor of this. The editors will want to know whether the comments from the previous reviews for a different journal were taken into account in the new version. Authors should not be allowed to simply 'shop around' at different journals, hoping they will get lucky and find more compliant or less critical reviewers. That is a waste of scarce reviewing resources. Glossa has a policy of rejecting a paper out of hand if the reviewer informs the editors that the authors have blatantly ignored all previous reviews at a different journal.

6. Please answer review reminders. There may be a host of reasons why you cannot make the original deadline. Inform the editors and keep in touch. Always handle the review assigned to you in the same way you would like reviews of your own article to be treated.

7. Consider using our new and improved review format, developed by David Pesetsky and available to download in PDF here. It is not compulsory, but it will help you organize your thoughts and is of great value to authors and editors.

Section Policies

Editorial

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Research

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Overview article

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Book review

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Review Article

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Squibs

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Quick links