The aim of reviewing is to determine if the evaluated paper has quality and pertinence enough to be published (with or without modifications) in Cadernos de Fraseoloxía Galega or if should be rejected.
The “Estudos/Studies” section of Cadernos de Fraseoloxía Galega contains original research articles on Phraseology. Both theoretical and applied works (translation, didactics, phraseography…) will be accepted. Reviewers must consider that (1) the corpora of analysis may be a phraseological catalogue in any language, and that, in this journal, (2) “Phraseology” is understood as a broad term that includes not only locutions, but also collocations, sytagmatic compound words and paroemias. Considering the above, reviewers must indicate if articles comply with the journal’s thematic approach.
Reviewers must indicate if the article complies with the minimum quality criteria to be published. The following aspects must be considered:
Reviewers must complete their report in accordace with these instructions. Thus, they must indicate and justify if the contribution complies with the thematic interests of the journal. If the review is positive, they must also indicate and justify if the contribution complies with the quality criteria of the journal.
Even though the quality criteria have been separated according to several aspects that must be considered during the review and commented in the report, reviewers are free to organize its presentation. In any case, all the examined aspects must be justified, regardless of them being positive or negative. We also encourage reviewers to discern between fundamental and secondary observations in their report. The comments made by the reviewers must be related to a decision about publishing the contribution or not. Thus, the report must state if:
If options 2) or 3) are suggested, reviewers must make clear what changes are needed so the article can be published. These suggestions must be justified or refer to the quality review.
The report must be clear and precise. Reviewers are encouraged to be especially precise when describing what aspects need changes so the article can be published. Thus, a complete reference of the works the reviewer is referring the author to should be provided.
One of the main goals of a revision process is to contribute to the improvement of an article’s quality by facilitating a constructive and objective critical assessment. In this regard, reviewers are urged to avoid acerbic expression that may discourage authors during their research. Reviewers must consider that articles may be written by early-stage researchers that could benefit from a constructive review, improving or redirecting the basic features of their working method.
Reviewers must send their reviewing report to the Editorial Assistant paremias@cirp.gal within one month at the latest since the reception of the article. Each article will be sent to two different reviewers. In the event of discrepancies between their reports, a third reviewer will be contacted, and their decision will be unappealable. In order to find these reviewers, the Editorial Assistant will have a minimum of ten days and a maximum of twenty. However, if special difficulty in achieving this task occurs (due to the specificity of the article’s subject or language), that deadline may be extended.
The Editorial Assistant will inform the author of the reviewers’ decision, which can be the final or conditional (that is, subject to changes) acceptance of the article or its rejection. This notification must be sent to the author within ten days since the reception of the reviewers’ deliberation. Moreover, it will be a reasoned report made by the Editorial Assistant and based on the reviewers’ reports. In some cases, the full version of the reviewers’ reports can be sent to the author.
If a work is conditionally accepted, the Editorial Assistant will include the reviewers’ suggestions within the report. The author must submit the reviewed article or a statement where the reasons to dismiss such changes are stated no later than fifteen days after the reception of the report. On another note, the journal will have a deadline of ten days since the reception of the reviewed article or the statement of dismissal to notify its final acceptance or rejection. Under specific circumstances, the Editorial Assistant could send the reviewed article back to the reviewers, so they can verify that the changes comply with our journal standards. Furthermore, the author’s statement of dismiss could be sent to the reviewers, so they can assess its relevance.
The arbitration system is a double-blind revision, so authors do not know who the reviewers are, and reviewers do not know the authors’ identity. Thus, reports must not contain any comment that could identify the reviewer.
The aim of reviewing is to determine if the evaluated paper has quality and pertinence enough to be published (with or without modifications) in Cadernos de Fraseoloxía Galega or if should be rejected.
The “Recadádivas/Compilations” section contains original compilations of Galician phraseology. It must be considered that, in this journal, “Phraseology” is understood as a broad term that includes not only locutions, but also collocations, sytagmatic compound words and paroemias. Considering the above, reviewers must indicate if articles comply with the journal’s thematic approach.
Reviewers must indicate if the article complies with the minimum quality criteria to be published. The following aspects must be considered:
Reviewers must complete their report in accordace with these instructions. Thus, they must indicate and justify if the contribution complies with the thematic interests of the journal. If the review is positive, they must also indicate and justify if the contribution complies with the quality criteria of the journal.
Even though the quality criteria have been separated according to several aspects that must be considered during the review and commented in the report, reviewers are free to organize its presentation. In any case, all the examined aspects must be justified, regardless of them being positive or negative. We also encourage reviewers to discern between fundamental and secondary observations in their report. The comments made by the reviewers must be related to a decision about publishing the contribution or not. Thus, the report must state if:
If options 2) or 3) are suggested, reviewers must make clear what changes are needed so the article can be published. These suggestions must be justified or refer to the quality review.
The report must be clear and precise. Reviewers are encouraged to be especially precise when describing what aspects need changes so the article can be published. Thus, a complete reference of the works the reviewer is referring the author to should be provided.
One of the main goals of a revision process is to contribute to the improvement of an article’s quality by facilitating a constructive and objective critical assessment. In this regard, reviewers are urged to avoid acerbic expression that may discourage authors during their research. Reviewers must consider that articles may be written by early-stage researchers that could benefit from a constructive review, improving or redirecting the basic features of their working method.
Reviewers must send their reviewing report to the Editorial Assistant paremias@cirp.gal within one month at the latest since the reception of the article. Each article will be sent to two different reviewers. In the event of discrepancies between their reports, a third reviewer will be contacted, and her/his decision will be unappealable. In order to find these reviewers, the Editorial Assistant will have a minimum of ten days and a maximum of twenty. However, if special difficulty in achieving this task occurs (due to the specificity of the article’s subject or language), that deadline may be extended.
The Editorial Assistant will inform the author of the reviewers’ decision, which can be the final or conditional (that is, subject to changes) acceptance of the article or its rejection. This notification must be sent to the author within ten days since the reception of the reviewers’ deliberation. Moreover, it will be a reasoned report made by the Editorial Assistant and based on the reviewers’ reports. In some cases, the full version of the reviewers’ reports can be sent to the author.
If a work is conditionally accepted, the Editorial Assistant will include the reviewers’ suggestions within the report. The author must submit the reviewed article or a statement where the reasons to dismiss such changes are stated no later than fifteen days after the reception of the report. On another note, the journal will have a deadline of ten days since the reception of the reviewed article or the statement of dismissal to notify its final acceptance or rejection. Under specific circumstances, the Editorial Assistant could send the reviewed article back to the reviewers, so they can verify that the changes comply with our journal standards. Furthermore, the author’s statement of dismiss could be sent to the reviewers, so they can assess its relevance.
The arbitration system is a double-blind revision, so authors do not know who the reviewers are, and reviewers do not know the authors’ identity. Thus, reports must not contain any comment that could identify the reviewer.