From Submission of an Article to its Publication
The journal commits to a relatively short publication cycle of an average of one year, from the first submission to the online publication of the article. The first reviews are generally returned to the authors less than three months after they are sent, and the second reviews are carried out within a similar time frame. Before being published online, accepted articles are proofread and formatted to ensure the professional quality of the journal.
The review process of the journal is "double-blind". Submitted articles must be anonymized. Each submitted article is reviewed by three reviewers: at least one is a member of the editorial board; the other reviewers either belong to a specific committee for thematic issues or are recognized specialists in the theme of the article submitted to a "Varia" issue. On the basis of the reviewers' comments, the editorial board decides either to reject the article definitively, or to accept it, or to ask for important modifications. In the latter case, the article is revised in accordance with the editors' requests and is again reviewed by the same reviewers. The reviewers will examine the authors' explicit responses to their comments. At the end of this second review, the final decision (accept or reject) is made by the editorial board. Final changes may be requested from the authors for their final version, whose implementation will be verified by the editors alone.
The following evaluation grid is used by the reviewers.
DETAILED SCORES (1 is poor, 5 is excellent) :
- Does the paper fit in the topics of the journal?
- Is ithe scientific content clearly presented?
- Are the discussions in the paper clear?
- Is the overall organization of the paper satisfactory (order and size of the sections)? Is the technical quality of the paper satisfactory (figures, graphs, plots, formulas, etc.)?
- Do the title, abstract and keywords provide a clear, accurate indication of the material presented?
- Does the paper appear to be flawed technically or methodologically? Are there enough linguistic examples? Are they detailed?
- How important is the work?
- Are the techniques evaluated on sufficiently large data?
- Are the references complete and accurate?
- How novel is the approach? Do you consider the content of the paper to be of a high originality?
GENERAL RECOMMENDATION (FIRST REVIEWING ROUND):
5 (= Accept the submission as is)
4 (= Revisions required: The paper is acceptable but requires some changes suggested in the COMMENTS TO AUTHORS section)
3 (= Resubmit for review: The paper requires significant revisions suggested in the COMMENTS TO AUTHORS section before a decision can be made. The author(s) will have to send a revised version for evaluation)
2 (= Reject. Encourage the author(s) to try a major revision or suggest to submit to another journal (specify which one))
1 (= Reject. Do not encourage another submission)
FINAL RECOMMENDATION (SECOND REVIEWING ROUND):
COMMENTS TO AUTHORS (WILL BE SEEN BY THE AUTHORS AND THE EDITORIAL BOARD): (provide detailed and constructive comments so that authors can improve their submission)
COMMENTS TO THE EDITORIAL BOARD (WILL NOT BE SEEN BY AUTHORS):
The table below gives figures concerning some issues of the journal. They show that, despite variations due to more or less promising themes, the journal continues to attract submissions, some of which are in English.
|3 (1)||2 (1)||9|
|2 (0)||1 (0)||10|
|7 (0)||2 (0)||10|
|5 (4)||3 (2)||12|
|4 (1)||3 (1)||9|
|8 (0)||1 (0)||10|
|13 (8)||5 (2)||8|
|59-2||8 (2)||3 (2)||11|
|59-1||10 (2)||3 (0)||9|