CRPIH

Review Process

“Estudos/Studies” section

Purpose of the review

The aim of reviewing is to determine if the evaluated paper has quality and pertinence enough to be published (with or without modifications) in Cadernos de Fraseoloxía Galega or if should be rejected.

How to approach the review process

Research interest

The “Estudos/Studies” section of Cadernos de Fraseoloxía Galega contains original research articles on Phraseology. Both theoretical and applied works (translation, didactics, phraseography…) will be accepted. Reviewers must consider that (1) the corpora of analysis may be a phraseological catalogue in any language, and that, in this journal, (2) “Phraseology” is understood as a broad term that includes not only locutions, but also collocations, sytagmatic compound words and paroemias. Considering the above, reviewers must indicate if articles comply with the journal’s thematic approach.

Quality

Reviewers must indicate if the article complies with the minimum quality criteria to be published. The following aspects must be considered:

  • Authenticity and relevance: Does the author offer a new, relevant contribution within the research field?
  • Adequacy of the chosen methodology: Does the author apply a suitable methodology?
  • Adequacy of the conclusions: Are the conclusions completely and suitably justified on the basis of the presented data?
  • Presenting the information: Does the author properly organize and present the information?
  • Use of the bibliography: Does the author use the accurate bibliography in their research? Is the bibliographical discussion pertinent?

Review presentation

Reviewers must complete their report in accordace with these instructions. Thus, they must indicate and justify if the contribution complies with the thematic interests of the journal. If the review is positive, they must also indicate and justify if the contribution complies with the quality criteria of the journal.

Even though the quality criteria have been separated according to several aspects that must be considered during the review and commented in the report, reviewers are free to organize its presentation. In any case, all the examined aspects must be justified, regardless of them being positive or negative. We also encourage reviewers to discern between fundamental and secondary observations in their report. The comments made by the reviewers must be related to a decision about publishing the contribution or not. Thus, the report must state if:

  1. the article can be published without modifications,
  2. the article can be published with minor modifications,
  3. the article can be published with major modifications,
  4. the article cannot be published.

If options 2) or 3) are suggested, reviewers must make clear what changes are needed so the article can be published. These suggestions must be justified or refer to the quality review.

Style of the review

The report must be clear and precise. Reviewers are encouraged to be especially precise when describing what aspects need changes so the article can be published. Thus, a complete reference of the works the reviewer is referring the author to should be provided.

One of the main goals of a revision process is to contribute to the improvement of an article’s quality by facilitating a constructive and objective critical assessment. In this regard, reviewers are urged to avoid acerbic expression that may discourage authors during their research. Reviewers must consider that articles may be written by early-stage researchers that could benefit from a constructive review, improving or redirecting the basic features of their working method.

Reviewing process

Reviewers must send their reviewing report to the Editorial Assistant paremias@cirp.gal within 15 days since the reception of the article. Each article will be sent to two different reviewers. In the event of discrepancies between their reports, a third reviewer will be contacted, and their decision will be unappealable. The Editorial Assistant will inform the author of the reviewers’ decision, which can be the final or conditional acceptance of the article or its rejection. This notification will be a reasoned report made by the Editorial Assistant and based on the reviewers’ reports. In some cases, the full version of the reviewers’ reports can be sent to the author. However, they will not contain any information that could allow the identification of the reviewers. If a work is conditionally accepted, the Editorial Assistant will include the reviewers’ suggestions within the report.

The author must submit the reviewed article or a statement where the reasons to dismiss such changes are stated no later than 15 days after the reception of the report. On another note, the journal will have a deadline of 7 days since the reception of the reviewed article or the statement of dismissal to notify its final acceptance or rejection. Under specific circumstances, the Editorial Assistant could send the reviewed article back to the reviewers, so they can verify that the changes comply with our journal standards. Furthermore, the author’s statement of dismiss could be sent to the reviewers, so they can assess its relevance.

The arbitration system is a double-blind revision, so authors do not know who the reviewers are, and reviewers do not know the authors’ identity. Thus, reports must not contain any comment that could identify the reviewer.

“Recadádivas/Compilations” section

Purpose of the review

The aim of reviewing is to determine if the evaluated paper has quality and pertinence enough to be published (with or without modifications) in Cadernos de Fraseoloxía Galega or if should be rejected.

How to approach the review process

Research interest

The “Recadádivas/Compilations” section contains original compilations of Galician phraseology. It must be considered that, in this journal, “Phraseology” is understood as a broad term that includes not only locutions, but also collocations, sytagmatic compound words and paroemias. Considering the above, reviewers must indicate if articles comply with the journal’s thematic approach.

Quality

Reviewers must indicate if the article complies with the minimum quality criteria to be published. The following aspects must be considered:

  • Presentation of the compilation: Does the author offer an organizational criterion of the phrases? Are these phrases properly and systematically lemmatized? In this case, are the definitions properly and systematically presented?
  • Information: Does the author offer all the relevant data related to the compilation (metholodogy, spatial-temporal coordinates, selection criteria, etc.)?
  • Methodology: Does the author apply a suitable methodology concerning the compilation and selection of phraseological units?

Review presentation

Reviewers must complete their report in accordace with these instructions. Thus, they must indicate and justify if the contribution complies with the thematic interests of the journal. If the review is positive, they must also indicate and justify if the contribution complies with the quality criteria of the journal.

Even though the quality criteria have been separated according to several aspects that must be considered during the review and commented in the report, reviewers are free to organize its presentation. In any case, all the examined aspects must be justified, regardless of them being positive or negative. We also encourage reviewers to discern between fundamental and secondary observations in their report. The comments made by the reviewers must be related to a decision about publishing the contribution or not. Thus, the report must state if:

  1. the article can be published without modifications,
  2. the article can be published with minor modifications,
  3. the article can be published with major modifications,
  4. the article cannot be published.

If options 2) or 3) are suggested, reviewers must make clear what changes are needed so the article can be published. These suggestions must be justified or refer to the quality review.

Style of the review

The report must be clear and precise. Reviewers are encouraged to be especially precise when describing what aspects need changes so the article can be published. Thus, a complete reference of the works the reviewer is referring the author to should be provided.

One of the main goals of a revision process is to contribute to the improvement of an article’s quality by facilitating a constructive and objective critical assessment. In this regard, reviewers are urged to avoid acerbic expression that may discourage authors during their research. Reviewers must consider that articles may be written by early-stage researchers that could benefit from a constructive review, improving or redirecting the basic features of their working method.

Reviewing process

Reviewers must send their reviewing report to the Editorial Assistant paremias@cirp.gal within 15 days since the reception of the article. Each article will be sent to two different reviewers. In the event of discrepancies between their reports, a third reviewer will be contacted, and their decision will be unappealable. The Editorial Assistant will inform the author of the reviewers’ decision, which can be the final or conditional acceptance of the article or its rejection. This notification will be a reasoned report made by the Editorial Assistant and based on the reviewers’ reports. In some cases, the full version of the reviewers’ reports can be sent to the author. However, they will not contain any information that could allow the identification of the reviewers. If a work is conditionally accepted, the Editorial Assistant will include the reviewers’ suggestions within the report.

The author must submit the reviewed article or a statement where the reasons to dismiss such changes are stated no later than 15 days after the reception of the report. On another note, the journal will have a deadline of 7 days since the reception of the reviewed article or the statement of dismissal to notify its final acceptance or rejection. Under specific circumstances, the Editorial Assistant could send the reviewed article back to the reviewers, so they can verify that the changes comply with our journal standards. Furthermore, the author’s statement of dismiss could be sent to the reviewers, so they can assess its relevance.

The arbitration system is a double-blind revision, so authors do not know who the reviewers are, and reviewers do not know the authors’ identity. Thus, reports must not contain any comment that could identify the reviewer.