About the Journal

Focus and Scope

Isogloss is a journal of theoretical and experimental linguistics, with the Romance varieties as object of investigation.

Submissions are accepted for articles on any linguistic phenomenon in any Romance variety. No specific theoretical approaches are given any preference, but the articles need to have clear implications for the theory of language and should not be only descriptive in nature.

Squibs are also welcome.

Isogloss accepts submissions for Special Issues. SI are not conference proceedings, i.e. collections of all papers from a conference, but they can be selected proceedings or sets of articles around one topic. If you wish to propose a SI please contact the editors.

Submission are accepted in English only.

Peer Review Process

Isogloss adopts a double-blind peer-reviewing procedure.
Reviewers are asked to recommend whether a manuscript should be Accepted as is, Accepted with minor revisions, or Rejected. Reviewers are required to follow the review form provided.

The reviewing process should not exceed 4 weeks upon reception of the original manuscript.

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 [this paragraph is taken from Glossa’s reviewing guidelines].

If the reviewer thinks that the article is worthwhile but has a different idea on how to analyze the data or how to interpret them, s/he can write a short (max 5-page long) reply to the article. The Replies will also be published on Isogloss after evaluation by editors.

If an article is accepted for publication, the reviewers can have their name published on Isogloss, together with their review. Their contribution to the article will be acknowledged in this way. Reviewers can decide to have only their names or only the reviews published.

Publication Frequency

The journal is published online as a continuous volume and issue throughout the year. Articles are made available as soon as they are ready to ensure that there are no unnecessary delays in getting content  publically available.

Special collections of articles are welcomed and will be published as part of the normal issue, but also within a separate collection page.

[this section is courtesy of Glossa]

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate free access to its contents under the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

This is an open access journal licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License.

Statement on publication ethics and misconduct

The Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) is fully committed to promoting ethical conduct in the publication of its science journals, based on the principles laid down by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (http://publicationethics.org).

To achieve this, the UAB considers it essential for all parties involved in the publishing process for its science journals – editors, reviewers, and authors – to know and accept the terms of the above code, as summarised below.

Publishers
Publishers should undertake to do the following: 
• clearly establish the relationship between publishers, editors and other parties through a contract; 
• promote editorial independence; 
• respect privacy; 
• protect intellectual property; 
• maintain the integrity of published content; 
• publish content punctually. 

Editors

• Decisions on publishing papers. After consulting the editorial board, journal editors decide whether or not to publish the papers submitted to their department, basing their decision on the reports made by three external reviewers. They should apply the same criteria for accepting or rejecting all papers in accordance with their originality, importance and clarity. Editors must have systems in place for editorial decisions to be appealed against before the editorial board. They must also give full, up-to-date guidelines on authors' responsibilities and on the characteristics of papers sent to the journal.
• Non-discrimination. When examining submitted papers, editors should not take into account the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, country of origin, citizenship or political views.
• Confidentiality. Editors and other journal employees should not reveal information about the papers received to anyone other than the authors themselves and the reviewers. They should ensure that throughout the process the anonymity of reviewers and authors is maintained at all times.
• Conflicts of interest and disclosure. Editors should not use results from papers submitted to them for their own research work without express permission from the author.
• Recognition of error. Editors should publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when necessary.
• Quality. Editors should elicit the opinions of authors, reviewers and the editorial board in order to improve the editorial process.

Authors
• Authorship of the text. Papers submitted should be signed by the author and by anyone else who has played a significant role in planning, organising, conducting or processing the research that the paper is reporting on. In cases of co-authorship, the author submitting the text should state explicitly that it contains the names of all the authors, and that these have given their approval to the final version of the paper, for publication in a UAB journal.
• Responsibility. Authors take full responsibility for the content of their manuscript.
• Plagiarism and originality. Authors should be prepared to declare that the paper submitted to the journal is original in each and all of its parts and that all sources used are correctly cited in it.
• Access and conservation of data. At the editors' request, authors should clarify the sources or the data on which the research is based. These data should be kept for a reasonable time after publication, and may be disclosed if necessary.
• Multiple or repeated publication and conflicts of interest. Authors should not publish papers that present the same content in more than one journal at the same time.
• Conflicts of interest and disclosure. Authors should be prepared to declare that there is no conflict of interest that could affect the results of the research or the interpretations offered. They should also state sources of funding for the research, where applicable, and the name of the project their paper reports on.
• Errors in published papers. Authors who discover an important error or inaccuracy in a published paper should inform the journal editors and provide any information needed to make the necessary corrections.

Reviewers
• Peer review. A system of double-blind review is to be adopted, which helps editors and the editorial board to make decisions on manuscripts submitted and at the same time gives authors an opportunity to improve their work.
• Meeting lead times. Having agreed to review a paper, reviewers should respect the lead times established. If unable to do so, they should give sufficient notice of this to the editors.
• Confidentiality. Papers under review are considered to be confidential documents, so the reviewers should not discuss them with third parties without the permission of the editors.
• Objectivity. Reviews should be carried out objectively. Reviewers should express their opinions on manuscripts appropriately and justify their conclusions.
• Bibliographic references. Reviewers should provide exact bibliographic data on works of importance in the paper's subject area that the author may have omitted. Reviewers should also inform editors about any similarities detected between the text under review and other works.
• Conflicts of interest and disclosure. Any restricted information obtained in the review process is considered confidential and may not be used for personal ends. If carrying out a review entails a conflict of interest for reviewers because they have collaborated or competed with the authors or the authors' institutions, these reviewers should decline the review proposal.

Review Guidelines

To review a paper, you are required to fill a reviewing form. There are only 3 possible recommendations: Accept as is, Accept with minor revisions, or Reject. No Revise and Resubmit is allowed. You are not required to proofread the paper. However, if you wish to help the author with the proofreading or spot any typos/errors, you can mark them on the pdf and return them with the form. No other suggestions ot annotations are allowed.

The reviews must conform to the highest standards of courtesy and kindness. While critique of the contents is of course allowed, any comment regarding the author, anything that can be perceived as an insult or a derogatory statement towards the author(s) or their work is strictly forbidden.

Should you feel that you have a lot to say about the topic of the article or that the article can be further discussed, you are invited to do so by submitting a short Reply to the article. The Reply will appear as a separate publication on Isogloss, upon review by the editors.

Your review is due within max 4 weeks upon reception of the manuscript. You are required to comment on the following points, respecting the word limit indicated in the form:

1. Novelty of the contribution
Does the paper make a novel contribution to the understanding of the topic under investigation?

2. Empirical evidence
Is the empirical content of the paper sound (i.e. the data are collected and presented properly, the experiments are well designed, the statistics is well done, the examples contain no spelling mistakes, etc)?

3. Line of argumentation
Is the argument coherent and sound, with no major flaws and/or shortcomings, within the context of the theoretical assumptions made by the author?

4. References
Are there any relevant scholarly works that have been overlooked by the author? If the answer is YES, you are asked to please provide the full reference(s).

5. Multiple publication
Have you seen this paper, its content, the proposed analysis, or the conclusions published in other venues? [If your answer is YES, please add the relevant reference.]
Multiple publications are forbidden, but papers can be published that previously appeared in repositories or as conference papers .

6. Plagiarism and misconduct
Are you aware of any issues relating to author misconduct, such as plagiarism and unethical behavior? If the answer is YES, please add the details. This information will remain confidential.

7. [If your recommendation is Accept with minor revisions]
If you accept the paper with minor revisions, please list the revisions you would advice (you are not required to proofread  the paper)

8. [If your recommendation is Reject]
If you reject the paper, do you have any suggestions for how to improve it?

We encourage the publication of the reviews alongside the published papers. You will be asked whether you object to the publication of your review and of your name (separately), should the paper you are reviewing be accepted. You can opt for publishing only your review, only your name, both, or neither.

COMPETING INTEREST
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. [paragraph courtesy of Glossa]

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. [paragraph courtesy of Glossa].

Publication Fees

Since the publication costs for Isogloss are covered by the editing university internal budgets, authors do not need to pay an article-processing charge (APC) and no waivers are offered.

Sponsors

Utrecht University Centre for Linguistics, UiL-OTS

Sources of Support

ERC-CoG_681959_MicroContact