Policies

Peer-review process

At ELA every article and note submitted undergoes a double-blind, peer-reviewed process. The aforementioned assessment is done following this procedure:

1. Texts go through a preliminary review by the journal’s Editorial Board where the manuscript is evaluated on whether or not it reports the results of original research and has the adequate structure and coherence, as well as on its thematic pertinence in terms of the profile of the publication. This preliminary review is conducted by a member of the Editorial Board whose field of expertise is the one closest to the topic of the paper. When the result of the preliminary review is inconclusive, the text being evaluated receives a new and final review by a different member of the Editorial Board. This stage lasts no more than two weeks.

2. Texts that have been approved in the preliminary review are submitted to the double-blind review of two experts in the field of the proposed work. At least one of the reviewers must be attached to an institution different from the sponsor of ELA, the ENALLT-UNAM. They can be experts in any academic institution, either national or international.

The board is responsible for the selection of the reviewers and evaluate their work. 

3. When an expert is asked to review a submission, she/he is asked to give a positive or negative response regarding her/his availability to perform the task within the first week of the request. If the expert gives a positive response, she/he is asked to submit the report in a maximum of 40 days.

4. To evaluate the work, the reviewer receives a format where the criteria that are to be the basis for the analysis are explicitly pointed out to guide her/him when issuing her/his recommendation: originality of the research, contribution to the field, command of the topic and of the contents by the author, organization, coherence, methodology, theoretical framework, suitability of the references, etc. The recommendation issued must correspond to one of the following options: a) publish the manuscript in its current state; b) publish it with minor changes; c) publish it under the condition that certain essential problems are solved d) do not publish it.

5. When there are substantial differences in opinion among the two reviewers of a given text, a third review is requested. When a third review is necessary, the evaluation process may take up to a month longer.

6. When a paper receives at least one conditioned review, the revised version is submitted to the referee/reviewer who conditioned the text in order to determine if the problems were solved or not.

7. Based on the evaluation of the reviews undergone by the paper, the Editorial Board makes the final decision about the publication of the paper.

8. The authors receive an answer from the Board, regardless of the outcome of the evaluation, in a maximum of 6 months.

9. When the article is suitable for publication, but the author has to make some minor amendments that will not require scrutiny by the reviewer, the author will have a maximum of 15 days to send the corrected manuscript. When the article is conditioned to the solution of major problems in order to consider it suitable for publication, and thus the second version is to be subjected to the scrutiny of the reviewer, the author will have a maximum of 30 days to send the corrected article. If the author fails to meet the established deadlines, the Editorial committee shall have the right to withdraw the article from the publication process.

 

Review Guidelines

In the process of evaluation, the reviewers should abide by the following general criteria in order to determine whether or not a paper is to be published or not:

  1. Originality and contribution to the field or to the theoretical framework adopted.
  2. Clear and precise command of the subject area as well as the contents of the paper.
  3. Adequacy of the methodology and/or the theoretical framework.
  4. Suitability of the literature and whether or not it is up to date.
  5. Clear and coherent organization.
  6. Clear writing that conforms to the accepted style for scientific papers. 
 

Ethical Principles

Ethical Responsibilities of the Editorial Board and its Coordinator

  • The Editorial Board must guarantee that all the editorial decisions, including the peer review process, be objective and impartial; fair and appropriate.
  • The Editorial Board, through its Coordinator, is in charge of making sure that all the contents proposed for publication go through the review processes and evaluation necessary to guarantee their quality and originality.
  • The Editorial Board has to ensure that the reviewers assess the submitted papers objectively, irrespective of the author’s ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, nationality or political affiliation.
  • The Editorial Board decides which articles are accepted by the journal. The decision to accept or reject a paper for its publication is based solely on the importance of the paper itself, its originality, clarity and suitability to the journal. If a paper is subject of controversy, the Board’s Coordinator has the final say on the matter.
  • The Editorial Board is committed to guaranteeing the confidentiality of the review process; it shall never reveal  the identity of the authors to the reviewers neither the identity of the reviewers themselves. Only the author and the formally appointed reviewers can receive texts and information about the review process.
  • The Editorial Board, through its Coordinator, assumes the responsibility of duly informing the author the stage of the review process which the submitted paper has reached as well as the results of the evaluation.
  • The Editorial Board shall let authors know the evaluation criteria explicitly, and in every instance, it shall justify under academic criteria the acceptance or rejection of the texts submitted for publication. The Editorial Board shall always justify any controversy in the review process.
  • The Editorial Board, through its Coordinator, shall publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies if needed.

Ethical Responsibilities of the Authors

  • Authors must guarantee their texts are product of their original work and that the data has been obtained ethically. Likewise, they must guarantee their work has not been published previously or that it is not being considered for publication by another journal. A previously published work is understood as any of the following:
  1. When the text has been published in its entirety.
  2. When extensive fragments of previously published materials are part of the text submitted to the journal.
  3. When the paper submitted to the journal is part of annals published in extenso.
  4. These criteria refer to previous publication either in printed or electronic form and in any given language.
  • In order for their work to be published, authors must strictly follow the guidelines for publication of articles as defined by the Editorial Board, and the papers must closely adhere to ELA’s style sheet.
  • The authors of reports of original research must present a precise description of the work that has been done, as well as an objective analysis of its importance. The underlying data must be represented accurately in the article. The document must contain enough detail and references to allow others to use the work. Fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate statements are deemed as unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
  • Authors attest that they have written the text submitted for publication in its entirety. If they have used the work or words from other authors they must be referenced appropriately. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes an unethical editorial conduct and it is unacceptable. Consequently, any text which commits plagiarism will not be considered for publication.
  • An author should not, broadly speaking, publish texts that describe essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same text to more than one journal constitutes an unethical behavior which renders its publication unacceptable.
  • Sources should be acknowledged in the proper manner. Authors should reference the publications that have been influential to the nature of the submitted text. The information obtained privately, as in conversations, correspondence or in conversation with others, should not be used without the explicit consent of the source.
  • Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the study. All those who have made significant contributions should appear as co-authors. The main author or authors should make sure that the co-authors be included in the article and that all have seen and approved the final version of the document and have agreed to submit it for publication. The exclusion of those who have contributed to the authorship of the paper is unacceptable. Likewise, it is unacceptable to add as the author of a paper someone who has not been significantly involved in the process of design and execution of the research and/or in the wording of the written report of the aforementioned research. If unjustified exclusions or inclusions of authors were to be found, the paper will not be considered for publication. Additionally, once a text has been submitted, changes in authorship will not be accepted.

Ethical Responsibilities of the Reviewers

  • The reviewers must be committed to maintaining the confidentiality of all the information related to the articles they are reviewing. Any disclosure of the texts they are working on, or of the information (data, results, opinions, etc.) is unacceptable. It is also unacceptable for reviewers to make publicly known both their participation as evaluators of a given text as well as their opinion of it. Likewise, they are not to use this information for personal gain. Any breach of the principle of confidentiality results in the definitive exclusion of the perpetrator from the pool of ELA reviewers.
  • The reviewers must perform their evaluation in an objective manner. All criticism directed at the author is inappropriate. The reviewers must express their opinions or points of view in a clear way and should support them with valid arguments in a language that is to be strictly academic.
  • For the evaluation of the texts, the reviewers should follow the criteria that has been proposed by ELA in performing the task. These can be found in the evaluation format that has been made available to them in this website in the internal section for reviewers. These criteria for evaluation correspond to the fundamental guidelines that the authors must follow in the preparation of their articles (See Guidelines for Authors). 
  • If the reviewers were to detect any unethical conduct by the author or authors, they are bound to report it. Additionally, they are to put forward any matter which could be a reason why the articles should not be published.
  • Specialists invited to review a text should notify the Editorial Board in as little time as possible if they are able to review a proposed text within the time frame and in the utmost professional manner.
  • In the instance of a conflict of interest, the specialist asked to review a text should notify this to the Editorial Board and should reject the invitation. 

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content, guided by the principle that offering the public open access to the published research helps to promote a broader global exchange of knowledge.

Se autoriza la reproducción de los artículos (no así de las imágenes) con la condición de citar la fuente y de que se respeten los derechos de autor.

Copyright Notice

Licencia Creative Commons
Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

 

Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses provided to this journal will be used solely for the intended purposes of the publication and they will neither be shared with third parties nor used for other purposes.