Information for authors

Before sending in their manuscripts, authors should make sure that the topic of their work is consistent with the aims and scope of Jezikoslovlje, and that it has been prepared with due consideration of the manuscript quality criteria. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope and those that are obviously unfit for publication will not be eligible for review and will be desk-rejected during editorial prescreening.

Authors are expected to have completed their work in compliance with the fundamental principles of academic research integrity, viz. ensuring the quality of research, honesty in developing and communicating research, respect for various research participants, and accountability for the research. To minimize the risk of ethical misconduct on the part of authors, all authors are required to submit, together with their manuscript, a completed and duly signed Author Declaration form, regulating ethical issues, especially issues of authorship, duplicate submissions, and plagiarism. Manuscripts submitted without the completed and signed Author Declaration form will not be taken into consideration, without notification of the author(s).

All manuscripts undergoing double-blind review must be presented completely anonymously. 

(a) Text: Author(s) must make sure that their names are not announced explicitly on the manuscript. 

(b) Document properties (Word File): Author(s) personal information should be removed from the Word document properties. 

(c) References to own published work or work in progress/print/forthcoming: In the body of the text, the use of first person pronouns I or we in references to own published work must be avoided. Alternatively, formulations like “At least one study (AUTHOR, XXXX) has shown that …” can be used. In the reference list, the citation should be marked as “AUTHOR (XXXX)”, with NO

Authors are kindly asked to make their manuscripts consistent with the journal’s major stylesheet requirements before submission. While failure to observe every requirement at initial submission will not disqualify the work from further consideration, manuscripts that are grossly incompatible with Jezikoslovlje’s stylesheet (e.g. have not been fully anonymized, have not been proofread, etc.) will be returned to the author for adjustments before being processed further (Step 2 of the Review procedure). Any style issues that remain will need to be corrected by the author during later revisions of the manuscript (following acceptance or acceptance pending revision). 

We welcome contributions written in Croatian and English. Authors must proofread their manuscripts carefully before submission. Authors who are not native speakers of the language of the contribution must have their manuscripts checked by a native speaker before submission. Jezikoslovlje will not publish articles that have not been proofread and whose language is of insufficient quality.

1.1. Double-blind peer review (original full-length articles, state of-the-art articles, short notes)

Step 1. Manuscript submission

Author submits the fully anonymized manuscript and the completed and signed Author Declaration form

Step 2. Editorial prescreening

Each submission is subject to editorial pre-screening to determine its compatibility with the aims and scope of Jezikoslovlje and its general fitness for double-blind peer review. Editors may reject a submission without sending it out for review if the manuscript clearly falls outside the scope of Jezikoslovlje and/or is found obviously unsuitable for publication. Eligible manuscripts may also be returned at this stage for style corrections if they are grossly incompatible with the journal’s style. Submissions received without the duly completed and signed Author Declaration form will not be taken into consideration, without notification of the author(s).

Step 3.  Double-blind peer review

Eligible manuscripts are sent out to two evaluators. In cases of conflicting opinions and/or recommendations, a third reviewer may be recruited or Jezikoslovlje’s editors may be invited to weigh in on the matter 

Step 4.  Editorial decision

Editors make the decision regarding the manuscript taking into consideration reviewers’ recommendations received in step 3, and inform the author of the decision. Possible outcomes: acceptable, unacceptable, or acceptable pending revision. Manuscripts which would require substantial revision to become fit for publication will generally not be assessed as acceptable pending revision. If the topic of the study is deemed to be of sufficient interest to the journal, the authors may exceptionally be invited to substantially revise and resubmit the study for a new round of reviewing.

Papers accepted (pending revision) proceed to Steps 5–8

Step 5. Revision and/or style adjustment

Authors of papers accepted pending revision are asked to revise the manuscript within a given time-frame. When resubmitting, authors must (a) state clearly in a separate file titled “Author’s responses” how they addressed each reviewer’s comments and (b) clearly mark (highlight) all changes in the revised text. Any remaining stylesheet issues must be eliminated at this stage. Authors may exceptionally decide that some requests should not/cannot be accommodated, but any such decisions must be well-reasoned and must be kept to a minimum. Authors of accepted papers are asked to address minor issues in their manuscript (if any) and, if necessary, make final style adjustments.

Author's responses

Step 6. Final evaluation of the revised manuscript by (original) reviewers and/or editors

Depending on the scope of requested revisions, the revised manuscripts may need to be sent out to the original or new reviewers for final evaluation. Alternatively, editors may decide whether the revised manuscript has sufficiently addressed and repaired any shortcomings in the original submission specified by the reviewers. Authors should keep in mind that the fact alone that some or even all of the reviewers’ comments have been addressed is no guarantee that the revisions will be deemed sufficient or acceptable i.e. it is no guarantee of manuscript acceptance.

Step 7. Final decision

Taking into consideration the final recommendations by the reviewers and/or the final assessment made by the editors, the final decision on acceptance/rejection is made and communicated to the authors. Note: the Editorial Board reserves the right to request of the authors minor adjustments in the content, style and/or language of the manuscript all through the final stages of preparing the manuscript for publication.

Step 8.  First e-proofs of accepted manuscripts

Once accepted, first proofs of the manuscript will be sent to the corresponding author as a PDF for a final check. Only the necessary technical corrections may be indicated at this point (e.g. errors in cross-referencing), but no changes to the content of the manuscript. The changes should be marked in the PDF file using PDF’s Comment and Markup tools and the corrected file must be returned to Jezikoslovlje within four business days of receipt of proofs.

Quality Criteria for original full length articles

(and where applicable, to other manuscripts subject to double-blind peer-review)

A good manuscript has the following qualities:

Aims and scope: the manuscript is fully consistent with the aim and scope of the journal;

Rationale: the manuscript presents a clear rationale for the study, which is motivated by a   critical examination of the history of relevant research in the field (background); State-of-the-art articles must state the theoretical relevance of the topic and of the associated scholarship examined

Knowledge of relevant research, concepts, terminology: the manuscript uses updated literature, demonstrates knowledge of previous research in the field, including knowledge of appropriate concepts and terminology;

Goals: the manuscript has goals, hypotheses, research questions which are clearly articulated and motivated by the background;;

Method: the manuscript has scientific depth and rigor; uses proper methodology and data and has been executed on the basis of an appropriate research design; 

Results: the manuscript presents results that are relevant for current research in the field and have strong theoretical implications;

Discussion: the manuscript features a critical discussion of the theoretical implications and relevance of the results presented; the discussion sticks close to the data, background, motivation, hypotheses and research questions, and/or to the theoretical issues raised; 

Organization: the manuscript has a clear focus and is well organized; it shows sufficient connection between the background, motivation, research questions, discussion;

Language: the manuscript is well-written language-wise, esp. concerning accuracy, clarity and appropriateness of style;

Manuscripts likely to be rejected in Step 2 or in Step 4 have any of the following weaknesses:

Aims and scope: the manuscript is inconsistent with the aim and scope of the journal;

Rationale: the manuscript does not present a clear rationale for the study or the presented rationale is not sufficiently motivated by a critical examination of the history of research in the field (background); State-of-the-art articles fail to reflect the theoretical relevance of the topic and associated scholarship examined, or do not examine topics of particular theoretical relevance;

Knowledge of relevant research, concepts, terminology: the manuscript does not use updated literature and/or fails to demonstrate knowledge of previous research in the field, including knowledge of appropriate concepts and terminology;

Goals: the manuscript lacks an explicit statement of the goals, hypotheses, research questions; and/or the goals, hypotheses and research questions are insufficiently motivated by the background;

Method: the manuscript lacks scientific depth and rigor; has serious flaws in methodology or research design; 

Results: the manuscript presents results that are of little or no relevance for current research or have little to no theoretical implications;

Discussion: the manuscript does not feature a discussion of the theoretical implications of the results of the study or has a discussion that merely repeats the results without a critical examination of their relevance; the discussion goes too far beyond or does not sufficiently and exhaustively address the data, background, motivation, hypotheses and research questions, and/or the theoretical issues raised in the paper; 

Organization: the manuscript is poorly written and poorly organized, i.e. shows insufficient connection between the discussion, data, background, motivation, research questions;

Language: the manuscript is of poor quality language-wise, esp. concerning accuracy, clarity and appropriateness of style;

1.2. In-house review (book reviews, book notices, conference reports, Comments and Replies) 

Step 1. Manuscript submission

Author submits the manuscript and the completed and signed Author Declaration form

Step 2. Initial in-house assessment

Each submission is subject to initial editorial assessment to determine its compatibility with the aims and scope of Jezikoslovlje, and its suitability for in-house review. Editors may reject a submission if the manuscript clearly falls outside the scope of Jezikoslovlje  and/or is deemed clearly unsuitable for publication. Eligible manuscripts may also be returned at this stage for style corrections if they are grossly incompatible with the journal’s stylesheet. Submissions received without the duly completed and signed Author Declaration form will not be taken into consideration, without notification of the author(s).

Step 3. In-house review

Types of manuscripts undergoing in-house review will be checked for content, consistency, style, etc. by a member of the editorial board.

Step 4.  Editorial decision

Editors inform the author of the decision. Possible outcomes: acceptable, unacceptable, or acceptable pending revision.

Papers accepted (pending revision) proceed to Steps 5–8

Step 5. Revision and/or style adjustment

Authors of papers accepted pending revision are asked to revise and resubmit the manuscript within a given time-frame. When resubmitting, authors must clearly mark (highlight) the changes in the revised text. Any minor style issues must be eliminated at this stage. Authors of accepted papers are asked to address minor issues in their manuscript (if any) and, if necessary, make final stylesheet adjustments.

Step 6. Final evaluation of the revised manuscript

Editors make their final evaluation and decide whether the revised manuscript has sufficiently addressed and repaired any shortcomings in the original submission. The fact alone that some or even all of the editorial comments have been addressed is no guarantee that the revisions will be deemed sufficient or acceptable i.e. it is no guarantee of manuscript acceptance.

Step 7. Final decision

The final decision on acceptance/rejection is communicated to the authors. Note: the Editorial Board reserves the right to request of the authors adjustments in the content and/or language of the manuscript at any point during the publication process, including the final stages of preparing the manuscript for publication.

Step 8.  First e-proofs of accepted manuscripts

Once accepted, first proofs of the manuscript will be sent to the corresponding author as a PDF file for a final check. Only the necessary technical corrections may be indicated at this point (e.g. errors in cross-referencing), but no changes to the content of the manuscript. The changes should be marked in the PDF file using PDF’s Comment and Markup tools and the corrected file must be returned to Jezikoslovlje within four business days of receipt of proofs.

Quality criteria for manuscripts undergoing in-house review

A good manuscript

1. has a clear focus and is well organized; 
2. highlights the theoretical relevance of the issues raised;
3. demonstrates knowledge of previous research in the field, including knowledge of appropriate concepts and terminology;
4. is of high quality language-wise, esp. concerning accuracy, clarity and appropriateness of style;
5. strictly follows the stylesheet instructions.

Manuscripts most likely to be rejected either in Step 2 or in Step 4 

1. are inconsistent with the aims and scope of the journal;
2. lack a clear focus, are poorly written and poorly organized;
3. fail to show the theoretical significance of the issues raised;
4. ail to demonstrate knowledge of previous research in the field, including knowledge of appropriate concepts and terminology;
5. are of poor quality language-wise, esp. concerning accuracy, clarity and appropriateness of style;
6. fail to follow the stylesheet instructions.

Authors of manuscripts judged acceptable pending revision are asked to inform the Editorial Board whether they intend to proceed with the suggested revisions of the manuscript or not. In the former case, authors should complete their revisions within the given time-time. As they proceed with their revisions, authors must enter into a separate file titled “Author’s Responses” how they addressed each of the comments of each reviewer and clearly mark (highlight) all changes in the revised text. Authors may exceptionally decide that some requests should not/cannot be accommodated, but any such decisions must be well-reasoned and must be kept to a minimum.

If at any point during or after the review procedure or publication of the article, the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his work submitted to/published in Jezikoslovlje, they must inform the Editorial Board thereof immediately.