About the Journal

Focus and Scope

Estudos de lingüística galega is a forum for the publication of linguistic research and critical analysis and a meeting point for scientific exchanges about the Galician language. In accordance with these two objectives, the journal publishes:

  • Original research articles on different branches of linguistics and philology. A special place is given in the journal to studies of Galician or of interest for Galician (including work on Romance linguistics, general linguistics, or with a theoretical or methodological focus), as well as studies of the different varieties of Portuguese. These research articles make up the Pescuda section.
  • A production inventory for the year prior to the year of publication, together with original critical reviews of linguistic studies that are of direct or indirect relevance to Galician. These make up the Anada section.

Articles submitted for publication in Estudos de Lingüística Galega must be original, not previously published in any other form or any other language, not accepted for publication elsewhere and not under consideration by another publication. All articles submitted for publication are assessed anonymously by external referees.

The portal web of Estudos de Lingüística Galega appears in Galician and English; the languages of publication are the Galician, Portuguese, Catalan, Spanish, French, English and Italian.

Peer Review Process

Items received by the editors will be reviewed by a member of the Editorial Board to determine whether they meet the minimum requirements for publication, taking into account whether an item fits in any of the journal’s sections in terms of content and form and meets the journal’s requirements for submissions (i.e. adequately complies with the “Authors’ form” and, if applicable, includes needed permission for the reproduction of incorporated materials). If the submitted manuscript fails to meet the minimum requirements, the editors will promptly communicate its reasons for rejection to the author (within a month at the latest).

Manuscripts meeting the minimum requirements will be sent anonymously (via email if possible) to two experts who shall each provide an evaluation of the item’s suitability for publication within a month of receiving the item for review. The Editorial Board will select external or internal referees who are judged to be suited to the task of evaluating the content of submitted work on the grounds of their research background, sometimes on recommendation from members of the Editorial Board or the Scientific Advisory Board. The Editorial Board may also consider experts suggested by the author provided these have not been involved in the development of the work under consideration, have not read it previously and are not related to the author in a way that might exert an influence on judgment other than on the basis of strictly scientific criteria.

The author may also reject a maximum of two potential reviewers on grounds of the existence of a relationship which might possibly influence the evaluation on account of criteria other than the quality of the work. In no event will authors be informed of the identity of referees (double-blinded reviewing). In order for an item to be published, both of the referees’ recommendations must be affirmative. In the event that only one of these referees recommends publication, the article will then be submitted to a third reviewer whose decision will be final.

Book reviews submitted will be evaluated anonymously by two members of the Editorial Board, and selected based on the relevance of their content to that of the reviewed item. In the event that only one of these referees recommends publication, the article will be submitted to a third member of the Board whose decision will be final.

Items requested from authors by the Editorial Board will go through the same refereeing system as unsollicited submissions.

Authors will be informed by e-mail of the unconditional acceptance, provisional acceptance or rejection of their manuscripts, as the case may be, no later than three months after receiving the article. Copies of the referees’ anonymous reports will be enclosed. Sometimes a single report written by the Editorial Board may be sent, based on the reviews submitted by the referees.

If a manuscript has been accepted provisionally, the Editorial Board may enclose a list of its own recommendations. These may include observations from copy editors and printers regarding style, writing, grammar and presentation, as well as mentioning points on which the publisher’s requirements have not been met. Items written in English will be checked by a qualified proofreader. The author is expected to make the appropriate changes as soon as possible (and never taking more than a month), or else to respond regarding the changes proposed. A revision incorporating the changes should be e-mailed to the secretary of the journal (elgilg@usc.es), with changes that have been made highlighted. If necessary, the author should also send a document explaining how the changes made relate to what was requested by the reviewers or editors, and with any relevant observations from the author in response to the suggestions received. The new version together with this document will be sent back to the reviewers, who will have two weeks to produce a report stating whether or not they recommend publishing the article.
Nonetheless, if the nature of the comments by the peer-reviewers does not make it necessary to send the manuscript back to them, the new version will be reviewed by the Editorial Board, who will also communicate their decision to the authors within two weeks.

Within two weeks after receiving the reviewers’ report, the Editorial Board shall come to an agreement and give notification of its final decision on whether or not to accept the article for publication. This notification, which will by sent by email unless the author requests a printed copy, will state in which issue of the journal the item will be published.

Publication Frequency

The Estudos de lingüística galega journal is published once a year (in the summer months).

Open Access Policy

Estudos de lingüística galega offers open access to its full-text content.

There are no processing charges.

Diffusion and editorial quality

CIRCULATION

Quality data bases

  • Journal of Citation Indicator (JCI): 0,25 (2020)
    • Ranking JCI: 243/360 (Q3, Language & Linguistics)
  • FECYT: 30.09 (2020)
    • Ranking 27/68 (C2, Lingüística)
  • MIAR, circulation (ICDS): 9,6 (2021)

Data bases

  • Scopus, Web of Science, ERIH PLUS, ESCI, CSA Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts, MLA (Modern Language Association), Linguistic Bibliography, REDALYC, DOAJ, Open Access Digital Library, ISOC, ULRICH, DIALNET, CiteFactor, Cabell's Directory, REDIB, etc.

EDITORIAL QUALITY

  • Sello de Calidad FECYT (2021; C2)
  • CIRC (Clasificación integrada de revistas científicas): Human Sciences, A; Social Sciences, B
  • CARHUS+: B
  • LATINDEX: 33 out of 33 criteria
  • Integrated System Capes (Qualis Periodicos): A2

Disclaimer and exclusion of liability

Estudos de lingüística galega is not responsible for the contents of any article, and the fact of its sponsoring the spreading of an article does not necessarily entail its agreement on the theses exposed in the article.  The editor, in any case, is free of any responsibility resulting from the author’s eventual violation of intellectual property rights.

Instructions for referees

Purpose of the review

The purpose of the review is to determine whether or not the evaluated article is of sufficient interestand quality to be published, with or without changes, in Estudos de Lingüística Galega.

Review criteria

Interest of the subject

Only original research articles on different branches of linguistics and philology will be published in the Pescuda section of Estudos de lingüística galega. A special place is given to studies of Galician or of interest for Galician (including work on Romance linguistics, general linguistics, or with a theoretical or methodological focus), as well as studies of varieties of Portuguese.

Quality

State whether the article meets the minimum quality requirements to be publishable, taking the following points into account:

- Originality and relevance: does the author contribute anything new and relevant to the field?

- Suitability of methods: are the methods used appropriate?

- Validity of conclusions: are the conclusions expressed adequately justified by the data presented?

- Data presentation: are the data well organised and explained?

- Adequate use of references: does the author refer to the proper bibliography for the subject of study, and are the references discussed adequately?

Presentation of the review

Fill in the form accompanying these instructions. State and explain whether the item is suited to the journal’s areas of interest, and if so, also state and explain whether it meets the journal’s standards of quality.

Although some criteria for quality have been listed and these should be taken into account when reviewing and feature in the evaluation, the referee is free to decide how to organise the report. However, please make sure you give your reasons for any opinions, either favourable or unfavourable, that are expressed. It is also helpful if, when making your case, you differentiate between what you consider major and secondary points.

The reviewer’s comments should relate to the decision about whether the article should be published: you are to state whether the article…

a) is publishable as is,

b) is publishable with minor changes,

c) is publishable provided substantial changes are made, or

d) is not suitable for publication.

If you indicate b) or c), clearly state what changes are required in order for the article to be published. These suggestions should either be accompanied by an explanation or be linked to points already discussed in your review of the article’s quality.

The review style

Your report should be clear and precise. Take special care to be explicit when discussing points where changes are required in order for the article to be published and to give full references for any bibliographical item cited.

You are reminded that one of the main purposes of reviewing processes is to help improve the quality of contributions through constructive criticism.  Therefore please be constructive and avoid any caustic remarks which might discourage the author of the paper (bear in mind that the article may have been written by a novice researcher, whom your constructively critical review may help to improve or rethink fundamental aspects of their way of working).

The reviewing process

The referee must return the review form no later than one month after receiving the item for review. Each article is sent to two referees, and only in the event of their issuing contradictory recommendations will a third referee be consulted.

Authors will be informed by e-mail of the unconditional acceptance, provisional acceptance or rejection of their manuscripts, as the case may be, no later than three months after receiving the article. Copies of the referees’ anonymous reports will be enclosed. Sometimes a single report written by the Editorial Board may be sent, based on the reviews submitted by the referees.

If a manuscript has been accepted provisionally, the author is expected to make the appropriate changes as soon as possible (and never taking more than a month), or else to respond regarding the changes proposed. A revision incorporating the changes should be e-mailed to the secretary of the journal (elgilg@usc.es), with changes that have been made highlighted. If necessary, the author should also send a document explaining how the changes made relate to what was requested by the reviewers or editors, and with any relevant observations from the author in response to the suggestions received. The new version together with this document will be sent back to the reviewers, who will have two weeks to produce a report stating whether or not they recommend publishing the article.

The refereeing system is double-blinded, i.e. authors are not to be told the identity of reviewers and reviewers are not to be told who the authors are either. Therefore please be careful not to make any comments in your report which might serve to reveal your identity.

Reviewers

Estudos de Lingüística Galega is very grateful to all those scholars who kindly collaborated in the evaluation process. The list of reviewers who contributed to recent issues is published periodically.

Ethical Guidelines

The publication of scientific articles involves several actors, including the publisher, the editors in chief, the reviewers and the authors. It is expected that each of these agents have an ethical behaviour referred to ethical principles partially inspired in those provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines.

Publisher

The publisher provides technical assistance and support to the journal editors in the use of the web platform, and maintains the software updated and able to facilitate the submission, evaluation and publication process of scientific works. The publisher also collaborates with the editors in chief indexing the papers, providing information about the databases requirements and, so, contributing to the Journal positioning in the usual rankings. Broadly, the publisher should helps to increase the editorial quality of the Journal, contributing to its visibility, internationalization and impact.

Editors in chief

Editors in chief ensures that manuscripts submitted are evaluated based exclusively on its intellectual content, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, political affiliation or philosophical trend of the authors. They guarantee the confidentiality of the work, not revealing the identity of the authors to other agents except to those authorized by the publisher, the potential reviewers, the actual reviewers or the editorial board of the journal. Editors can refuse a job if it not satisfy the formal requirements or approach a subject not belonging to the scope of the journal. Editors communicate within the deadlines, once they see the referees and heard the editorial board, the acceptance or rejection of the submitted papers.

Reviewers

Reviewers should refuse to refer a paper if they do not feel qualified in the subject approached or if they can not take the evaluation within the deadline suggested by the Journal. The referee report should be objective and written in a clearly and reasoned style. Reviewers should avoid ad hominem references and offensive or demeaning comments; their suggestions should focus mainly on the improvement work. Reviewers should treat manuscripts as confidential documents, and their contents is not used in their own works. Reviewers should reject referee papers if they show a conflict of interest, for example a past or present relationship with the paper's authors or the institutions they depend.

Authors

Authors should submit papers containing original research on a clearly identifiable and not previously published subject. They should not send articles including a substantial part of others papers or books already published. Papers should be written so that they can be understood or replicated by reviewers. If ideas of others are used, they should be clearly referenced; plagiarism is an unacceptable behaviour and its detection involves cancel the submission or remove it from the platform if it was already published. In case of co-authorship, all people that significantly contribute to the paper are considered its author; each author should be able to identify which parts of the work are own and which parts are from others authors, and must maintain confidentiality of the all contents until the article is published. Simultaneous paper sending to other Journals is a sufficient condition for archiving it. If in the process of the paper edition the authors find errors or improprieties, they should communicate to the editors in chief as soon as possible and cooperate in their correction. Authors should communicate the potential conflict of interest between the paper findings and the financial support.

These guidelines are consistent with the ethical code of the University of Santiago de Compostela, institution to which this Journal belongs.

https://www.usc.es/gl/goberno/valedor/codigoetico/CodigoEtico.html

Inclusive language

The journal recommends that authors use inclusive language in texts free of prejudices associated with gender, race, sexual orientation, functional diversity, beliefs and ideology. In the treatment of the data analysed in the papers, it is considered inappropriate to provide detailed information about individuals that is irrelevant to the study and also to ignore the specific differences of individuals when these exist and are relevant.
The journal will ensure that the people named in the bibliographical references of the papers are listed at length and in full, so that they are unequivocally identifiable.

Digital preservation policy

This journal develops various processes in order to preserve permanent access to digital objects hosted on its own servers:

- Backups.
- Monitoring of the technological environment to foresee possible migrations of obsolete formats or software.
- Digital preservation metadata.
- Use of DOI.

The files published on this website are available in easily reproducible formats (PDF)

Anti-plagiarism Policy

This journal is a member of Similarity Check, a multi-publisher initiative started by Crossref to screen published and submitted content for originality.

Through Similarity Check, we use the iThenticate software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted or published manuscripts.

By depositing all of our content in the Similarity Check database we allow other Similarity Check members to screen their submissions against our published articles.

Interoperability protocols

This journal provides an interface OAI-PMH (Open Archives Initiative – Protocol for Metadata Harvesting) that allows other websites and information services to harvest the published content metadata.

Specifications:

OAI-PMH Protocol Version 2.0
Dublin Core Metadata 1.1

URL for harvesters:
https://revistas.usc.gal/index.php/elg/oai