This journal uses ScholarOne (ScholarOne Manuscripts (manuscriptcentral.com)) for online submission and peer review. ScholarOne is a “comprehensive workflow-management system for scholarly journals, books and conferences”. 

Further information on ScholarOne can be found here, and queries can be directed to the Editors ([email protected]).

 

Guidelines for peer reviews for Phonology 

Peer reviews (also known as referee reports) can take many forms. 

For a survey of how the peer-reviewing process works in linguistics, please consult D’Arcy and Salmons (2021). 

Length

We don’t have a prescribed length, but we encourage reviewers to be relatively brief, aiming for 3-4 pages if possible. Because we solicit, on average, three reviews per paper, long reviews can result in daunting review packages for authors. They generate extra work for authors, reviewers, and editors, and over time they may change expectations about what is required of reviewers, so that reviewing becomes a burden. Long reviews are also likely to result in long revised papers, filled with passages intended to mollify the reviewers.

It can be useful for reviewers to separate their remarks into ‘things that need to be addressed’ and ‘thoughts I had while reading this.’  Reviewers are experts and can have lots of valuable thoughts that shouldn’t be wasted but that don’t necessarily need to end up in the paper under review.

Sections

• Summary of the paper: the basic phenomenon it aims to treat, its intended contribution, perhaps some background on the controversy or literature in which it is situated. This section is usually about ¼ to ⅓ of a page. Though the Associate Editor can be relied upon to have read the paper recently, the Editors-in-Chief may have many papers in the pipeline and are deeply appreciative of a genuine summary. The summary is also useful for the author, as a check that they are communicating their intended goals to the reader. Occasionally referees summarize the goals and contents of a paper better than the author has.
• A recommendation: should the paper be accepted, rejected, or does it have sufficient potential that it should be revised and resubmitted. ScholarOne will insist that you choose a recommendation from their list. There are sub-degrees possible within each recommendation, such as ‘provisionally accept, subject only to minor revision’; ‘minor’ vs. ‘major’ revisions’; and ‘reject, but with the door left open to a new submission on a related topic'. ScholarOne won’t give you all these choices, but you can convey them in your review if you like. ‘Revise and resubmit’ should only be used if there is a clear path forward for successful revision and a decent chance that the revision will be able to respond adequately to the critiques made and produce a paper that only needs minor rewriting to be publishable. A paper should not be offered resubmission only on the basis of having some promise or value. Virtually every paper that is sent out for review has promise and value.
• General comments: strengths and weaknesses of the paper overall. Usually fills up the rest of the page and can go on another page or so.
• Specific comments: can be line-by-line, small section-by-section, or whatever works. One good method separates substantive specific comments from a following section with minor ones, like suggestions for rephrasing, additional explanations, etc. Some referees annotate the pdf they received to record their minor comments. This is fine, but the annotation method should not be used for major comments. A separate document is easier for the author and editors to read. Please set your commenting identity to ‘anonymous’ if you annotate the pdf. It is not necessary to point out typos unless they substantively affect the meaning of the text (a missing ‘not,’ for example.) The author and editors can catch typos if the paper is accepted. However, if a paper has an unusual number of typos and other mistakes, or otherwise appears to have been carelessly prepared, it is worth saying so. These can be indicative of more pervasive problems, and in any case are disrespectful to referees, who should be given the courtesy of a carefully prepared manuscript.
• References mentioned in the review that the author has not cited. Authors are often very appreciative of specific references.

Tone and attitude

Referees have two rather different audiences: (a) the Editors, who need to hear the unvarnished truth and to understand the reasons for the recommendation and (b) the author, who needs constructive criticism, not sarcasm, unspecific praise, or reasons why their paper doesn’t fit in with the favorite theories of the referees. The least helpful reviews all around are less than a page and say things like ‘This was a really nice paper. I found 2 typos and you could change the organization a little bit. Other than that, it’s ready to go.’ So please don’t be too nice, when you really think there are some major flaws that need reconsideration, but don’t be mean or belittling either, and try to find something of value to praise. It’s best to avoid phrases that may sound demeaning or disbelieving, such as ‘ostensibly’ or ‘purports to’.

Please review the paper on its own terms. If it relies on a theoretical framework that has attracted publication and attention, then you should assume that it is acceptable for this framework to be used. In other words, do not use the review process as an arena for framework-warring. There is usually plenty to say about the quality of the evidence and reasoning while adhering to the general assumptions of the paper.

Background work

Sometimes a referee can read a paper all on its own, particularly since the referee is often expert in the sub-area or language the paper treats; but sometimes referees need to read the previous analyses that are being extended or revised, the original grammar(s) from which the critical data are taken, etc. However, the final paper should be able to stand on its own. If summaries of previous analyses are too compressed for a general reader to follow, do say so. Similarly, if it is unclear where the data comes from, what is new from this author vs. what builds on the work of others or on the author’s previously published work, point this out. In general, as much information as possible should be supplied to make the work replicable. For more detailed discussion, you may consult our statement on replicability and data provision in our Preparing your Materials.