Explorations in Linguistic Review

Scholarly independence Editorial judgments are based on academic relevance, argument, evidence, and contribution.

Theoretical exploration Developing ideas may enter the scholarly record when their theoretical value is clear.

Responsible review External peer review and subject expertise inform final editorial decisions.

Scholarly publicness ELR seeks durable, citable, openly accessible publication without transferring publication costs to authors.

Editorial Principles

Explorations in Linguistic Review (ELR) is founded on the principle that scholarly publishing should combine intellectual rigor with openness to theoretical exploration. Editorial decisions are based on the academic quality, originality, clarity, evidential basis, and theoretical significance of a submission, together with its relevance to the journal's scope.

ELR does not seek publication volume for its own sake. The journal aims to develop a restrained, reliable, and academically credible publication environment in which new analyses, theoretical problems, developing research, and mature research articles can enter a durable scholarly record.

Editorial decisions are made independently of commercial, institutional, personal, or other inappropriate influence.

Thematic Publishing Model

The main journal is organised around thematic issues rather than collections of unrelated articles. Each issue centres on a defined problem in linguistic theory and invites contributions approaching that problem from different theoretical, empirical, or subdisciplinary perspectives.

ELR Thematic Publishing

One theoretical question. Multiple perspectives. One thematic issue.

One volume The main journal normally constitutes one volume in each calendar year.

Thematic issues Each issue develops a focused linguistic problem through multiple scholarly perspectives.

Continuous publication Accepted work may be published once editorial, review, and production procedures are complete.

A thematic issue will normally bring together a focused body of work, with approximately seven to fourteen contributions where appropriate. Publication is continuous within the thematic issue: an accepted article does not need to wait until every contribution in the issue has completed the editorial process.

This structure is intended to make the issue itself a site of sustained theoretical inquiry, rather than merely a container for separate papers.

Initial Editorial Screening

Following submission, a manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Co-Editors-in-Chief. This assessment considers whether the submission falls within the journal's scope, presents a recognisable scholarly question or contribution, meets basic standards of academic presentation, and is sufficiently developed to proceed to specialist evaluation.

A submission may be declined without external review where it is clearly outside the journal's scope, lacks the necessary scholarly basis for evaluation, or is not yet suitable for the publication category under which it has been submitted.

Assignment to a Subject Editor

A manuscript that proceeds beyond initial screening is assigned to a Subject Editor whose academic expertise is relevant to the submission. ELR currently organises subject editorial responsibility across areas including syntax, semantics, phonology, excavated texts and historical Chinese, and other developing areas of the journal's programme.

The Subject Editor assists in the scholarly management of the manuscript, including the identification and invitation of suitable peer reviewers and the assessment of reviewer reports.

External Peer Review

Submissions selected for external review are normally evaluated by at least two scholars with relevant expertise. Reviewers are invited to assess the submission's scholarly contribution, theoretical or methodological reasoning, use of evidence, engagement with relevant research, and suitability for publication.

ELR uses anonymous peer-review procedures intended to support independent scholarly assessment. Authors should consult Ensuring an Anonymous Review when preparing files for evaluation.

Submission The author submits the manuscript through the ELR submission system.
Initial screening The Co-Editors-in-Chief assess scope, scholarly readiness, and basic publication suitability.
Subject Editor An appropriate Subject Editor assumes responsibility for the specialist editorial process.
At least two external reviewers Independent scholars evaluate the manuscript and provide reports.
Editorial synthesis Reviewer reports and the Subject Editor's assessment are considered together.
Final academic decision The two Co-Editors-in-Chief determine whether the manuscript is accepted, revised, reconsidered, or declined.
Production and publication Following academic acceptance, the Executive Centre coordinates production and publication.

Editorial Decision

Peer-review recommendations inform, but do not mechanically determine, the editorial decision. The Subject Editor considers the reports and the scholarly state of the manuscript, and the final academic decision is confirmed by the two Co-Editors-in-Chief.

Possible outcomes include acceptance, revision, further evaluation, or rejection. A request for revision does not constitute a guarantee of subsequent acceptance.

The Executive Centre is responsible for production, technical processing, and publication after the academic decision has been completed; it does not replace the scholarly judgment of the editorial process.

Divergent Reviewer Reports

Scholarly disagreement between reviewers is not treated as a procedural failure. In theoretical linguistics, differences in assumptions, frameworks, empirical interpretation, or analytical priorities may produce legitimately divergent evaluations.

Where reviewer reports differ substantially and the existing reports do not provide a sufficient basis for an editorial determination, the journal may invite a third reviewer or seek additional specialist advice. The purpose of additional review is to clarify the scholarly issues at stake rather than simply to create a numerical majority.

Working Papers and Developing Research

ELR recognises that important ideas in theoretical linguistics do not always first appear as fully closed or final research programmes. Working papers, theoretical notes, conference-based developments, and other forms of research in progress can play an important role in the development of linguistic theory.

The journal may therefore consider work that remains in development where the research question, theoretical relevance, evidence, and scholarly contribution are sufficiently clear to justify formal evaluation and publication.

Openness to developing research does not imply a lower scholarly standard. Submissions must still demonstrate academic responsibility, clear argumentation, appropriate engagement with previous research, reliable use of evidence, and a contribution worthy of inclusion in the formal scholarly record.

Theoretical Forum

The Theoretical Forum（理论大家谈）is an ELR publication format designed for concise theoretical contributions that present an original observation, emerging analysis, forward-looking proposal, or problem whose significance warrants scholarly circulation even when the idea has not yet developed into a conventional full-length article.

ELR Theoretical Forum · 理论大家谈

Short ideas. Serious theory. Shared exploration.

A curated scholarly conversation around one theoretical question.

Contributions will normally be approximately 500–1,000 words. Several contributions relating to the same thematic question may be brought together by the editorial team into a single formally published Forum article or thematic scholarly feature.

Each contribution remains clearly attributed to its individual author. The compilation of multiple perspectives does not remove or dilute the authorship of the underlying theoretical ideas.

500–1,000 words Concise enough to foreground a theoretical insight or question.

Individual attribution Every contribution identifies the scholar responsible for the view.

One theoretical question Multiple positions can be presented within a shared thematic context.

Formal scholarly record The Forum is edited and published as part of ELR's scholarly output.

The Forum is not an informal comment section. Contributions are selected, edited, and presented as scholarly material. Its purpose is to preserve and circulate theoretically meaningful ideas that might otherwise remain confined to workshops, correspondence, presentations, or informal discussion.

Special Collections

In addition to the thematic structure of the main journal, ELR develops Special Collections devoted to defined areas of linguistic research and scholarly communication. Special Collections may accept submissions throughout the year and follow publication schedules appropriate to their academic programmes.

Current ELR Special Collections include:

Phonetics and Contemporary Phonology — phonetics, phonological theory, generative phonology, and contemporary approaches to sound structure.
A Review of Cutting-Edge Theories in Linguistics — systematic introduction, critical review, and scholarly discussion of emerging theories and new directions in contemporary linguistics.
The History of Chinese and Linguistic Theory — excavated texts, palaeography, historical Chinese grammar, and their relationship to linguistic theory.

Where the treatment of excavated texts, palaeographic material, or historical Chinese requires a level of philological precision best maintained in Chinese, ELR may use a Chinese full-text article accompanied by an English academic commentary. This model is intended to balance philological precision with international theoretical accessibility.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal where they believe that a material factual, procedural, or evaluative issue has not been adequately considered in an editorial decision.

An appeal should identify the specific basis on which reconsideration is requested and should not consist solely of disagreement with the outcome of peer review.

Editorial complaints or reasoned appeals may be sent to [email protected] .

Corrections and the Scholarly Record

ELR seeks to maintain an accurate, transparent, and durable scholarly record. Significant errors or post-publication concerns may be addressed through corrections, amendments, editorial notices, retractions, or other measures appropriate to the nature of the issue.

Wherever technically practicable, any post-publication action should remain visibly linked to the original scholarly record so that readers can understand what has changed and why.

Questions involving research integrity, authorship, competing interests, disclosures, or responsible use of AI-assisted tools are addressed more fully in Ethics and Disclosures .

Peer Review

Peer Review and Editorial Decision Process

ELR uses a double-anonymous peer-review process for research manuscripts submitted for external review. Academic editorial decisions are separated from production and administrative functions.

A manuscript selected for external review will normally be evaluated by at least two independent scholars with relevant expertise. Where the reports are materially divergent or an additional specialist assessment is required, a third reviewer may be invited.

1 Submission and technical check The submission is checked for required files, anonymisation, basic formatting, scope, and obvious research-integrity concerns.

2 Co-Editor-in-Chief initial assessment A Co-Editor-in-Chief considers relevance to ELR, scholarly suitability, theoretical significance, and readiness for external review.

3 Subject Editor assignment A Subject Editor with appropriate disciplinary expertise is assigned to coordinate the scholarly assessment.

4 Reviewer selection The Subject Editor and Co-Editors-in-Chief identify and invite at least two independent scholars. Janeway One-click Review may be used for secure direct access to an assigned review.

5 Double-anonymous peer review Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently and provide reasoned scholarly reports and recommendations.

6 Editorial synthesis The Subject Editor considers the reports together, identifies substantive points of agreement or disagreement, and prepares an editorial assessment.

7 Revision Where revision is invited, the author responds to the editorial letter and reviewer comments and submits a revised manuscript with an appropriate response.

8 Re-review where required Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or to another qualified reviewer where further external assessment is necessary.

9 Additional review where reports diverge A third independent reviewer may be invited when the existing reports materially conflict or when additional expertise is required.

10 Joint final academic decision The two Co-Editors-in-Chief consider the peer-review record and editorial assessment and jointly confirm the final academic decision.

11 Production and author proof Accepted manuscripts proceed to editorial production, metadata preparation, copy preparation, and author proof where applicable.

12 Continuous publication The Executive Centre completes the publication process. Articles may be released once editorial and production requirements are complete without waiting for the entire issue.

Review Criteria

Reviewers and editors consider the manuscript as a whole. In particular, scholarly evaluation includes the following questions:

Originality Does the manuscript offer a genuinely new observation, analysis, theoretical argument, problem, or scholarly perspective?

Contribution Does the work make a meaningful contribution to linguistic knowledge or theoretical discussion?

Evidence Are the linguistic data, sources, examples, experimental results, textual materials, or other forms of evidence adequate for the claims made?

Argumentation Is the reasoning sufficiently explicit, rigorous, internally coherent, and responsive to plausible alternative analyses?

Theoretical significance Does the paper clarify, challenge, extend, or reopen a question of theoretical importance?

Scholarly presentation Is the manuscript sufficiently clear, structured, and complete to support responsible academic evaluation?

Editorial Recommendations

A Accept Suitable for publication without substantive revision.

B Minor Revision Publication may proceed after specified revisions have been satisfactorily completed.

C Major Revision / Re-review Substantial revision is required and the revised manuscript may undergo further external review.

D Reject The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.

Reviewer recommendations inform but do not mechanically determine the editorial decision. The academic record is considered as a whole. The Co-Editors-in-Chief retain responsibility for the final decision, while serious disagreement among reports may lead to additional review rather than a simple numerical vote.