Bouble-Blind Peer Review Process
The Revista de Investigación Lingüística will acknowledge receipt of the original manuscripts submitted by the authors.
Submitted manuscripts must strictly comply with the journal's standards; otherwise, they will be returned to their authors. The editors are firmly committed to ensuring that the manuscripts considered are free from plagiarism or any other type of fraud.
The Editorial Committee may reject an article without further evaluation if it considers that it does not meet the minimum standards of scientific quality required; it does not conform to the standards, both formal and content-wise, or it does not fit the thematic profile of the publication.
Once the submissions have been verified to meet the above requirements, they will be subject to an external peer-review process using the double-blind system, that is, they will be evaluated anonymously by two external reviewers, who will issue an evaluation report (the evaluation report may be consulted at the bottom of the page). For the manuscript to be accepted for publication, both reports must be positive (or, if the evaluation reports request substantial changes, it will be verified that these changes have been made by the author). If one of these reports is negative, a third reviewer will be asked to evaluate the work, whose opinion will ultimately determine whether the work is suitable for publication.
Furthermore, it should be noted, as stated above, that the reviewers may consider the work publishable with minor or significant modifications. If the modifications are minor, the author will be notified of this circumstance so that they can make them and resubmit the work, specifying the changes, which will be reviewed. If the modifications are significant, the author will also be notified of the result of the evaluation so that they can consider whether they wish to make them. If they accept the modifications, the work will be reviewed again by the same reviewers.
The reviewers will be renowned researchers specializing in the field. The anonymity of both the author and the reviewers will be maintained; however, lists of external reviewers who have collaborated with the journal in previous years will be periodically published.
RIL undertakes to respond to authors within a maximum of four months from the date of receipt, barring unforeseen circumstances. Non-teaching periods at the University of Murcia are excluded from this period.
The dates of receipt and approval will be indicated in each published article.
FORMULARIO DE EVALUACIÓN DE MANUSCRITOS
¿Se trata de un trabajo original de investigación, no publicado con anterioridad?*
¿El tema de investigación abordado es relevante para los estudios de lengua española o lingüística general en sus perspectivas diacrónica o sincrónica?*
En relación con las fuentes bibliográficas, ¿se manejan las adecuadas o considera que dejan de utilizarse referencias fundamentales para el objeto de estudio?*
En el caso de que el trabajo tenga marco teórico, ¿lo considera sólido? Si no es así, indique qué aspectos son mejorables.*
¿Demuestra el autor un conocimiento actual de los problemas lingüísticos dentro del ámbito en el que se encuadra el trabajo?*
¿Considera adecuada la metodología que se emplea en el trabajo para alcanzar los objetivos planteados?*
¿Estima apropiada la estructura formal del trabajo en cuanto a su organización macroestructural (por apartados) y a la oportunidad de la denominación de los apartados?*
¿Considera que el título del trabajo es adecuado, claro y relevante?*
¿Resultan claros, precisos y convincentes los argumentos expuestos?*
En relación con la corrección idiomática propia de un texto expositivo-argumental, ¿está correctamente redactado el trabajo? Por favor, indique qué aspectos considera mejorables.*
Otras observaciones para el autor
Observaciones adicionales exclusivamente para los editores
RESULTADO DE LA EVALUACIÓN. El trabajo revisado es (marque uno)*
- Publicable en su estado actual
- Publicable con algunas modificaciones
- Podría volverse a evaluar con una revisión sustancial
- Rechazado
