PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Reviewing procedure:

The reviewers complete a review form, which includes subject matter issues, research problems and their originality, evaluation of the research methods applied, proper selection of literature and the evaluation of the text in terms of linguistics and editorial correctness and the clarity of the message. A unified document (a review form), available at the “Prace Językoznawcze” website, helps the evaluations to be standardized. Taking into account the same parameters leads to an objective approach to the review.

Apart from the obligatorily evaluated elements included in the review form, the reviewer can present additional remarks in the form of a supplement to the form or comments to the manuscript. The completed form and additional remarks (if any) are, after removing personal data of the reviewer (for preserving anonymity), provided to the authors of the texts. Reviews and reviewers' remarks are not available to the general public.

If they suspect plagiarism, the reviewers should indicate the publications that were not cited in the manuscript although the content or ideas originating from them were used in the paper. Each mention concerning previous research should be marked with a reference to the source. The editor-in-chief should be notified about the significant resemblance of the reviewed material to other publications known to the reviewer and not mentioned in the text.

The review has a written form and ends with a clear conclusion to accept the paper for publication or to reject it. The review is presented in an editorial form. Negative reviews must contain justification for the opinion on rejecting the text. In case of detailed remarks, it is accepted to insert them in the comments to the manuscript. In such a case, the reviewers are obliged to remove metadata that might indicate their authorship.

Reviews are confidential. Their authors should not disclose their content to other persons. The only people authorized to know their content are: editor-in-chief, editor of the volume, members of the editorial board. The above mentioned persons are obliged to maintain confidentiality. It is forbidden for them to use the information, the ideas or data obtained from the reviewed manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The editorial board takes care not to appoint reviewers with a conflict of interests with the author, i.e. direct personal relations (kinship, legal relations, conflict), professional reporting relations or direct research collaboration. If the reviewer suspects, based on the text or other reasons (e.g. the subject matter undertaken) the identity of the author and believes that a conflict of interests exists, the reviewer is obliged to immediately notify the editors about this fact. The editors resolve any doubts and, maintaining the anonymity of the author, notify the reviewer whether the conflict of interests really exists. If it is the case, the text is sent to another reviewer.

Criteria for the Acceptance and Rejection of Scholarly Articles

Criteria for the Acceptance of an Article for Publication

An article will be accepted for publication provided that it meets all of the following criteria:

1. Consistency with the Journal’s Scope

• The subject matter of the article falls within the scope of the journal and predominantly reflects a linguistic perspective.

2. High Scholarly Merit

• The article addresses a significant research problem;
  • it contributes new knowledge or an original contribution to the development of the discipline;
  • the research methods employed are appropriate to the aims and subject of the study;
  • the conclusions are supported by the analyses conducted.

3. Formal and Editorial Compliance

• The title accurately reflects the content of the article;
  • the structure of the text complies with the standards of scholarly publishing;
  • the length of the article is appropriate to the scope of the study;
  • the abstract accurately reflects the content of the article;
  • appropriate keywords have been provided.

4. Linguistic Quality

• The text has been prepared in accordance with the conventions of academic writing;
  • the article is linguistically accurate, clear and coherent.

5. Appropriate Use of the Literature

• The literature has been selected appropriately;
  • all sources used have been cited correctly;
  • references to previous research are complete and comply with the applicable citation standards.

6. Compliance with Ethical Standards

• The article does not violate the principles of publication ethics;
  • no plagiarism or unauthorised use of third-party content, data or concepts has been identified;
  • all materials used have been properly documented.

7. Positive Peer Review

• The article has received two favourable peer reviews;
  • the author has incorporated the revisions requested by the reviewers and the Editorial Board.

Criteria for the Rejection of an Article

An article may be rejected at any stage of the publication process for any of the following reasons:

1. Inconsistency with the Journal’s Scope
   • The subject matter falls outside the journal’s scope;
   • the article does not predominantly adopt a linguistic perspective.
2. Insufficient Scholarly Merit
   • Lack of an original contribution;
   • an insignificant or poorly formulated research problem;
   • insufficient analysis or unsupported conclusions.
3. Methodological Deficiencies
   • Inappropriate research methods;
   • lack of justification for the methods employed;
   • inconsistency between the research objectives, methodology and findings.
4. Deficiencies in the Use of the Literature
   • Inappropriate selection of references;
   • omission of significant sources;
   • incorrect citation practices or missing references.
5. Breach of Publication Ethics
   • Plagiarism, self-plagiarism or other breaches of research integrity;
   • use of third-party content, data or concepts without proper acknowledgement.
6. Failure to Meet Formal Requirements
   • Improper article structure;
   • inappropriate title, abstract or keywords;
   • numerous formal or editorial deficiencies.
7. Inadequate Linguistic Quality
   • Numerous language errors;
   • unclear, inconsistent or imprecise presentation;
   • failure to meet the standards of academic writing.
8. Negative Peer Review
   • Receipt of two negative reviews;
   • a negative review containing a substantive justification for rejection.
9. Failure to Address Reviewers’ Comments
   • Failure to implement the required revisions;
   • failure to correct significant scholarly, methodological, formal or linguistic deficiencies.

Editorial Decision

The final decision on acceptance for publication is made by the Editorial Board on the basis of the independent peer reviewers’ reports and an assessment of compliance with the journal’s formal, scholarly and ethical requirements. The possible outcomes are:
• acceptance for publication;
• conditional acceptance subject to revision;
• referral to a third reviewer in the event of conflicting reviews;
• rejection where two negative reviews are received or where the manuscript fails to satisfy the journal’s scope or its scholarly, formal or ethical standards.

The decision of the Editorial Board is final.

Review form

Other comments: