Studii de Gramatica Contrastiva
Studies in Contrastive Grammar
DESCRIPTION OF THE REVIEW PROCESS
Papers sent to the Editorial Board with a view to publication will be assessed by the members of the Scientific Committee and published solely with the approval of the referees. The authors will receive one of the following answers from the reviewers:
Accept, no revision needed:
Accept, but needs minor revision:
Accept, but needs major revision:
Reject, poor quality/out of scope
Authors are responsible for clarifying the right to use the information contained in the papers.
Each paper will be accompanied by an abstract (abstract, keywords; the abstract must state the objectives of the work, the methodology and the main results of the research or presentation) and include certain personal data (author's title/ institution, contact data: email address, telephone and fax number).
Editorial Board members will perform an initial assessment establishing the referees with expertise in the field of the paper and will select referees with expertise in the research field; referees will decide on the acceptance of the paper. Articles will be presented to the referees with a code number (without any indication of the authors' names).
Papers that fall within the scientific standards will be placed on the waiting list for publication. Papers that are likely to fall within the scientific standards following certain changes will be returned to their authors with the appropriate observations, in order that they can be finalised) After the scientific review, authors will be notified if a paper has been rejected.
For each paper, in the proposal for publication, reviewers will comment on the topicality of the theme, the thoroughness of the scientific ideas, the author's credibility and the innovation and originality he/she brings to the field.
1. Originality and innovativeness of the ideas or analysis
2. Competence (the degree of literature awareness in the field and the extent to which this is involved, used or developed in the paper).
3. Methodology – scientific/methodological quality, manner of treatment of the topic (starting with the design of the paper, the development of its concepts and of the subject), structure of the material, formulation and presentation of the information /analysis, including clarity, accuracy and comprehensibility.
4. Importance of thetopic (the goal of the paper and
of the results obtained; the extent to which objectives are achieved and the applicability or implementation).
5. Other criteria (if necessary).