General Policies

1. Types of texts

The texts conceived, elaborated and submitted by the Author(s) fall into the following categories:

  • original research articles, which bring new contributions to their field of research;
  • letters and research notes, which present, solve and point to important hypotheses and theoretical, methodological or practical finds;
  • review articles, which summarise the current state of understanding on a topic;
  • essays and reflections on major topics pertaining to the same fields of research;
  • book reviews of e.g. theoretical monographs, atlases, dictionaries, philological editions, and other types of contributions considered significant in the humanistic research areas covered by the Journal.

2. Criteria for publication

The selection for publication of the texts is made exclusively on the grounds of their scientific value and is guided by the fulfilment of the following criteria:

  1. the scientific importance of the research topic and its relevance to the development of a given field of interest;
  2. the degree of impact of the topic and its approach, correlated with the scientific quality of the text and its editing;
  3. the adequacy of the topic in relation to the requirements of the chosen research field and of the manner in which the research methodology is applied;
  4. the knowledge value created, both in its theoretical approach and in its ability to form and guide new researchers in their own methodological approaches, namely the degree to which the paper may become a model for further research, conception and elaboration of a scientific contribution to the field of humanities;
  5. the manner in which the text reflects the main principles of the scientific research, analysis and interpretation, in relation to the level of bibliographic depth and coverage of the significant resources;
  6. the quality of the approach, of the structure of the paper, and of the scientific endeavour; the accuracy and quality of the argumentation;
  7. the text’s transitivity towards researchers in other areas of human knowledge.

3. The peer-review process

All manuscripts submitted to “Diacronia” are peer-reviewed by two external Referees, members of the Board of Reviewing Editors. This process aims at selecting scientific papers that are valuable and of impact to both linguistic research, and the development of relationships between linguistics and philology, on the one hand, and between linguistics and other fields, on the other. The goal is to select for publication only high-quality texts, and to bring them under the scientific scrutiny of the community in their best possible form. The review, carried out by reputed specialists – in direct contact with the Editors and in mediated contact with the Authors – is meant to offer scientific solutions, suggestions, and advice concerning all the components of the research process and of the elaboration of a scientific text, as well as an exchange of ideas in order to facilitate their dissemination, adjustment, and beneficial confrontation in a rigorous scientific environment. The Referees evaluate all aspects of the texts received from the Authors.

The main task of the Referees is to identify the valuable aspects of the text (in terms of importance, consistency, novelty, originality, quality of scientific conception and elaboration) as well as its weaknesses; they suggest improvements and give verdicts. If the above-mentioned scientific criteria recommend the text for publication, the Referees also have the responsibility to determine the text’s compliance with other conditions, such as the stylistic and argumentative structures and the ethics in research.

The Editors will oversee that both textual dimensions are met according to the Journal’s requirements.

The Referees’ recommendations about potential adjustments within the texts or of the research techniques must consider all the real possibilities that are scientifically justified, all reasonable paths, not only those that the Referees would have taken, had they been the Authors.

Based on the Referees’ evaluation, the Editors’ decisions are mindful of the Journal’s goals and its editorial policy. The Editors’ main responsibility lies with the scientific community and the readers. Therefore, the Editors consider that the most adequate reviews are those supplying arguments on which they can take unequivocal decisions, compatible with the Journal’s policy. Consequently, the Journal, following the Referees’s recommendations and the Editors’ decisions, adopts a certain degree of solidarity with the Authors and their texts.

In order for the Referees to efficiently fulfil their task, they must offer the Editors the appropriate information in view of a clear and competent decision regarding the text’s compatibility with the Journal’s policy, which will lead to the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript. Likewise, the Referees must provide the Authors with outlines for the elaboration of an eligible/publishable contribution.

As far as possible, a negative evaluation should point out and explain to the Authors the weaknesses of the text, so that the Authors may understand the grounds of the rejection and become aware of the points to be revised and the paths to be taken for subsequent publication. However, the Referees are not required to give advice and details to Authors who clearly do not meet the Journal’s requirements. Should the Referees consider that a manuscript does not correspond to the Journal’s publication requirements, they can write a short and convincing argument to support their decision.

The Referees are interested to find out if:

  1. the text is among the most important contributions made to the field in the respective year;
  2. the contribution is valuable for the development of the field from a gnoseological or epistemological perspective, in terms of its theoretical, applied or methodological significance;
  3. the text has strongpoints, and what impact and consequences it carries for further research;
  4. the text and its approach to the reality of the research field are adequately connected;
  5. the founding principles of the text’s conception and construction are correlated with the values promoted by the Journal;
  6. the text needs any alterations in order to be accepted for publication;
  7. the improvements lead to a high-quality text;
  8. in the event of rejection, the Author can encouraged to resubmit a better manuscript;
  9. the text clear and to the point. If not, how much effort is needed in order to lead to the achievement of these qualities;
  10. the text is of interest to specialists from other research fields;
  11. various additions or alterations (pertaining to the theoretical approach, the analysis and interpretation of the material, instruments and methodological elements, manner of organising, elaborating and stylistically conceiving the text) could improve the text;
  12. the different components (theoretical, applied, methodological, argumentative) of the paper are optimally structured according to the requirements of the type of paper and to the assumed aims of the text;
  13. the ethics in research is respected (i.e. the bibliography must be correctly used, the citations and references must be rigorous and explicitly and correctly mentioned, the conceptual sphere discussed and / or promoted by the text must not be in discord with the moral fundamental principles of the society, etc.).

In case of unbridgeable disagreements between Referees, the Editors may send the manuscript to a third party. On the ground of this evaluation, the Editorial Board decides to publish the text/ postpone the publication and send the text for evaluation/ reject the text. In this case, the period of evaluation is extended, but not more than 30 days.

Although the Editors are fully aware that the Referees comply with their task at the highest level of competence, honesty and attention, if they consider it necessary, they can ask for further evidence, especially when there is a disagreement among the Referees, when the Editors are in doubt, or when the Authors express their dissatisfaction. Ultimately, the Editors may disregard the evaluation of a Referee, may consult another party if they have well-grounded reasons to do so or if they have irreconcilable differences with an evaluation.

4. Copyright

  • Copyright on all articles published in “Diacronia” is retained by the author(s).
  • As part of the editorial process, the authors grant “Diacronia” a licence to (re)publish the article in any future issues of the Journal.
  • The terms and conditions for the articles published in “Diacronia” are formalized by the Creative Commons Attribution Licence 4.0.