Reviewing guidelines

Thank you for having accepted to review for Radical. You will find below our guidelines for the reviewing process.

A. Please return your review within two months.

In your review, please respect our reviewing standards:

B. Considerations that should affect your decision about a paper (exhaustive list):

  1. Is the argument free of ambiguity (can one show that it is impossible to understand unambiguously)?
  2. Is the argument presented coherently?
  3. Are all the assumptions made in the paper both stated and discussed (when central and within the scope of the paper) in a non-ambiguous manner ?
  4. Are there factual, logical or methodological errors, or incorrect citations?
  5. Is there academic malpractice in the paper (factual errors, incorrect citations, occultation of sources, occultation of crucial linguistic facts, offensive statements etc.) ?

Given the right answers to B, the paper should be published.

C. Things that should not affect your decision about a paper (non-exhaustive list):

  1. I was not convinced by the argument.
  2. I have an alternative analysis that I think is better.
  3. I think that the author should consider an alternative analysis (or the same analysis) in a different theoretical framework.
  4. The scope of the article could be larger in terms of the data/languages it covers.
  5. How is this learned (unless the paper is about acquisition)?
  6. The analysis is too abstract/ surfacy/ cognitively unrealistic.
  7. Since the approach is not “mainstream”, it should be thoroughly presented and motivated in this paper, even if it has already been in the past.

D. Public discussion. We encourage reviewers to submit a public, non-anonymous reaction. The issues in C, as well as all other substantive remarks and criticisms that do not question the honesty or internal coherence of the article, can be part of your reaction.

Your public reaction can be submitted alongside other comments to the author. It is limited to 2-3 Radical-stylized pages. Depending on how many revisions the reviewer asks for, they can submit a public reaction directly in the first round (to be adjusted later) or after the paper has been accepted. The author, in turn, will get a chance to publish a reaction to your critique.

E. Final decision. The final decision on whether a paper is to acquire the status “peer-reviewed” belongs to the editor. If they find that considerations such as in C carry any weight in your decision about a paper, they reserve the right to overlook your recommendation (after explaining their decision to you, of course).