Review policy of the “Typology of Morphosyntactic Parameters” journal

1. The Editorial Board bases its decisions on double-blind reviewing by two independent specialists (in case of disagreement between them a third reader is asked to evaluate the work).

2. The Executive Secretary and the Editor review the paper for its correspondence to the journal’s scientific areas, submission and formating requirements, anonymize the text (if necessary) and send it to the reviewers specializing in the relevant scientific area.

3. The timeframe for expert recommendations may depend on internal and external circumstances of the Editorial Board’s dealing with the submission but should not exceed three months.

4. The reviewer considers the following aspects:
— correspondence of the title to the research itself;
— correspondence of the paper to the modern state of linguistics (including the use of up-to-date literature and other sources);
— soundness of the empirical content of the paper (e.g. fieldwork includes proper controls and comparisons, typological research is well designed, etc.);
— presence of explicitely formulated empirical generalizations and theoretical implications;
— soundness of the argumentation linking the paper’s broader conclusions to its empirical or theoretical premises;
— clarity of style and presentation of accompanying materials (such as figures, tables, diagramms, etc.);
— reasonability of publishing the paper in light of previous relevant publications on topic;
— strong and weak points of the paper which may require further improvements.

5. The overall evaluation of the paper should include the explicit conclusion on whether the paper can be accepted in its current form / accepted with minor revisions / revised and resubmited / declined.

6. The peer-review procedure is strictly confidential. The author(s) of the submission get(s) the reviews and the decision on acceptance/resubmission/declination via e-mail. Confidentiality of peer-reviewing can only be disclosed if the reviewer states unreliability or distortion of the data.

7. On the basis of the reviewers’ feedback, the Editorial Board makes a decision on acceptance/resubmission/rejection of the paper, which is then communicated to the author(s) by the Executive Secretary. If the objections and remarks of the reviewers are significant (accept with minor revisions / revise and resubmit), the contribution should be improved and corrected and may need a second review.

8. Papers declined by the Editorial Board are not for resubmission. For accepted papers, the Executive Secretary informs the author(s) about the possible period of publication.

9. The Executive Secretary holds the reviews for five years.