The editors of Glossa ask that authors declare whether a paper has been previously submitted elsewhere, as well as provide details of what the outcome of that process was, and how subsequent revisions have taken into account those reviews. Glossa has a policy of rejecting papers that do not sufficiently respond to reviews from previous submission processes, unless authors are able to explain and justify why they did not adapt their work.
The journal is happy to accept submissions of papers that have been loaded onto preprint servers or personal websites, presented at conferences, or disseminated through other informal communication channels. These formats are not considered prior publications, although the authors must have retained the copyright. Authors are encouraged to create a link from any prior posting of their paper to the final published version journaling Glossa, if possible.
Reviewers are asked to send in their reviews four weeks after accepting the invitation, but this is negotiable. They are invited to use a review form to evaluate the paper, but using this form is not compulsory. Reviewers are gently and regularly reminded of their invitations to review and the due dates for their reviews.
The reviewing process is double-blind: reviewers have no access to the identity of the authors, and the authors do not know who the reviewers are. However, if reviewers happen to know the identity of the author, this does not automatically disqualify them as reviewers.
During submission, authors can suggest and exclude reviewers for their submission, and they may justify these proposals. The Editors are free (but not obliged) to contact suggested reviewers. They will not contact excluded reviewers for the purposes of reviewing a submission.
Members of the editorial team/board/guest editors are permitted to submit their own papers to the journal. In cases where an author is associated with the journal, they will be removed from all editorial tasks for that paper and another member of the team will be assigned responsibility for overseeing peer review. A competing interest must also be declared within the submission and any resulting publication.
If the editorial decision is “resubmit for review”, ”revisions required”, or “accept submission”, authors are asked to provide a detailed document explaining how their revised submission has taken reviewers’ comments into account. This document will be read both by the reviewers (in the case of “resubmit for review”) and the Editor. The revised version should ideally be resubmitted within 10 weeks after the editorial decision is made, but this is negotiable. In the case of “resubmit for review”, the revised version and the document detailing the changes will be sent to the initial reviewers, unless the author can demonstrate that one of the reviewers is biased against the paper. Additional reviewers may also be invited at this point if the initial reviewer is unavailable, or at the discretion of the Editor. In principle (conditionally) accepted submissions are not sent out for review again once the author submits the revised version. The Editor makes an editorial decision based on the revised paper and the author’s reply to the reviewers. The Editor may still contact one or more reviewers regarding specific questions. In principle, the Editors will allow for a maximum of three rounds of submission for a paper.
In case of conflicting reviews, or if an author formulates justified objections to the review(s), the Editors reserve the right to invite a fourth, ‘Solomonic’ reviewer who will have access to all versions of the paper and all reviews in order to advise the Editors. At all times, the Editors try to facilitate the conversation between authors and reviewers as best they can.
Reviewers are asked to provide comment on the below topics and guidelines:
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.
8. Co-reviewing. We encourage senior reviewers to consider involving PhD students in their reviewing tasks if the paper is something the students have expertise on. We do not, however, endorse a situation in which the PhD student does the bulk of the work: co-reviewing means a joint review by a senior and a junior researcher. One way of doing this is for the co-reviewers to review separately, and then discuss their notes merging them into a single review. Reviewers willing to do so should inform the handling editor, and provide the name of the PhD student involved in the acceptance message. Co-reviewing trains students in a valuable skill, as it helps them to formulate constructive criticism and to better understand the reviewing process.
Collections (SCs) are collections of papers devoted to a particular
topic, and edited by a team of guest editors. This usually means that
authors are invited by the guest editors to submit to an SC.
Nevertheless, contributions to special issues are subject to the usual
editorial processes of blind peer review.
The main concern for SCs is to achieve a strong thematic unity, avoiding the impression of conference proceedings. The Glossa policy on SCs is to prefer small SCs with papers that constitute a tight fit, over very general ones with contributions that are only loosely connected thematically. The papers in an SC should be strongly complementary, and ‘talk’ to each other. In short, an SC should avoid the impression that it is a mere collection of standalone papers on the same topic from different insular perspectives.
There is a size limit of 10 articles or 100,000 words at most per SC.
All proposals are evaluated by the Glossa Editors. Once a proposal has been reviewed, the submitter(s) of the proposal will be informed of the Editors’ decision. The proposal should be sent in a single file that does not exceed 15 pages, and contain the following information:
The total time from acceptance to finalization of a Special Collection should not exceed 12 months.
Provide (approximate) dates for the following:
The journal strongly encourages authors to make all data associated with their submission openly available, according to the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). This should be linked to from a Data Accessibility Statement within the submitted paper, which will be made public upon publication. If data is not being made available within the journal publication, a statement from the author should be provided to explain why. Data obtained from other sources must be appropriately credited. When depositing data for a submission, the below should be considered:
A list of data repositories is available at http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Data_repositories.
The journal allows authors to deposit draft versions of their paper into a suitable preprint server, on condition that the author agrees to the below:
The journal strongly recommends that all authors submitting a paper register an account with Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID). Registration provides a unique and persistent digital identifier for the account that enables accurate attribution and improves the discoverability of published papers, ensuring that the correct author receives the correct credit for their work. As the ORCID remains the same throughout the lifetime of the account, changes of name, affiliation, or research area do not effect the discoverability of an author's past work and aid correspondence with colleagues.
The journal encourages all corresponding authors to include an ORCID within their submitting author data whilst co-authors are recommended to include one. ORCID numbers should be added to the author data upon submission and will be published alongside the submitted paper, should it be accepted.
All listed authors must qualify as such, as defined in our authorship guidelines, which have been developed from the ICMJE definitions. All authors must have given permission to be listed on the submitted paper.
To ensure transparency, all authors, reviewers and editors are required to declare any interests that could compromise, conflict or influence the validity of the publication. Competing interests guidelines can be viewed here.
In addition, authors are required to specify funding sources and detail requirements for ethical research in the submitted manuscript (see Author Guidelines). All authors must confirm that they fit the definition of an author (see Authorship Guidelines), during submission.
In accordance with guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (where applicable), the Press handles different kinds of error. All articles have their proofs checked prior to publication by the author/editor, which should ensure that content errors are not present. Please contact the journal if you believe an article needs correcting.
changes to the publication are not permitted unless in exceptional
circumstances. If an error is discovered in a published article then the
publisher will assess whether a Correction paper or Retraction is
Appeals, complaints, or allegations of misconduct will be taken with utmost seriousness, regardless of whether those involved are internal or external to the journal, or whether the submission in question is pre- or post-publication. If an allegation is made to the journal, it must also be passed on to the publisher, who will follow guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) on how to address the nature of the problem.
Should an individual wish to submit an appeal, complaint or raise an issue of potential misconduct regarding the journal or its content, they should contact that editor in chief and/or the publisher to explain their concerns.
The journal does not tolerate abusive behaviour or correspondence towards its staff, academic editors, authors, or reviewers. Any person engaged with the journal who resorts to abusive behaviour or correspondence will have their contribution immediately withdrawn and future engagement with the journal will be at the discretion of the editor and/or publisher.