Summary

  • Each abstract is double-blind peer reviewed.

  • Reviewers rate abstracts on various scales and optionally submit comments.

  • Abstract review dimensions are Significance, Originality, Clarity, Use of Academic Genre, Credibility, Reproducibility, Quality, Ethnographic Inclusion, Objectives, Relevance to Linguistic Sociocultural Anthropology and Conference theme(s), Structure, Appropriateness of Research, Methodological rigor, Potential for Discussion, Alignment with current and other conversations on the topic.

  • Reviewers do not compare the abstract under review with others, and hence, the success of the abstract is not predicated on the number of other abstracts reviewed or passed.

  • Acceptance rates for all GLOCAL conferences range between 29% to 49%.

Abstract Assignment

The Steering Committee ensures that each submission and proposal to the conference is individually and separately assigned to each of the two reviewers. This is not automated, and every process is managed through human coordination. The reviewers are selected as optimum for each specific strand and sub- strand, that is, they are selected by considering their specialty and relevance to the submission.

Each submission is carefully scrutinized by the Steering committee, and together with the suggested strand and domain of the submission, the abstract is then directed to the relevant reviewer.

The general theme of each abstract is then given to the reviewers, who then accept or reject the submission following which, the full abstract is then directed accordingly.

Reviewer Appropriateness

  • Reviewers must have high expertise in the subfield of the abstract.

  • Reviewers must be familiar with the theoretical and methodological direction of the paper.

  • Every effort is made to maximize the objectivity of the reviewers, which includes the assurance  that the reviewers are not provided with any information as to the author and the author’s networks

  • As the GLOCAL has a large global Scientific Committee, Regional Advisory Committee, and other committees, the number of abstracts for each reviewer are minimized.

Review Dimensions

Reviewers are asked the rate each of the following dimensions on a scale of 1 to 7

  • Significance

  • Originality

  • Clarity

  • Use of academic genre

  • Credibility

  • Reproducibility

  • Quality

  • Ethnographic inclusion

  • Objectives

  • Relevance to linguistic sociocultural anthropology and conference theme(s)

  • Structure

  • Appropriateness of research

  • Methodological rigor

  • Potential for discussion

  • Alignment with current and other conversations on the topic

Raw-Mean Score

The scores from each dimension are compiled and are then processed through two categories, the Raw Score and the Mean Score:

The Raw Score is such that the scores (maximum 7) from each dimension are aggregated. The Mean Score is such that the Steering Committee considers the extent to which the raw Score may deviate from the mean, and hence, any deviation serves to mitigate the ‘anomaly’ of the Raw Score, so as to reduce bias.

Review Period

The period between the submission of the proposal (abstract, colloquium theme, poster, keynote talk, and so forth) and response to the submitter is between two weeks and one month. However, any requests for revisions may extend the period and hence may delay the acceptance date. As such, scholars should plan to submit at the earliest time.

Abstract Ceiling

The conference does have a limit of allowable abstracts and will hence stop accepting abstracts at a predetermined number. We regret to inform submitters that following this quota, abstracts will not be accepted.

General

The GLOCAL conference proceedings peer review policy ensures that GLOCAL publications attain a high standard. This policy ensures that these publications have an increased objectivity. All manuscripts entered into the conference proceedings are peer reviewed using the following procedures. All peer review is under the management of the Editor in Chief, that is, the EIC.

Initial Evaluation

The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is possible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are normally passed on to at least two experts for review.

Peer Review Type

The peer review system is always (at least) double blind, placing both referee/reviewer and author as anonymous to each other.

Referee Selection

The GLOCAL attempts to match the paper with reviewers who have expertise with the paper under review. We have a large database of reviewers which we draw from for the process.

Referee Criteria

The criteria for review are as follows:

  • Originality

  • Methodological rigor

  • Ethical rigor

  • Systematicity and logicality in writing

  • Appropriate referencing

Duration

The duration for the review process is predicated on several factors, such as reviewer feedback, reviewer corrections, author corrections, author submissions, and formatting. AT times, we seek the opinions of other experts and academics in the field as the decision is conflicting or as the reviewer feels that they need more expertise. As such, reviews for the proceedings book usually take up to six months.

Notification

Authors will receive notifications of acceptance or rejection in due course, and these will include all comments by authors.

Contestation

Authors are able to contact the Editor in Chief (EIC) who is responsible for the final decision, should they feel that there has been an unjust decision, and this will be considered, once. After one re-review, the EIC’s decision is final and cannot be changed.

Submission Criteria

The GLOCAL conference proceedings will at no point accept nor encourage financial exchange for acceptance and publishing of work. All proceedings publications move forward on the grounds that they have academic worth and merit, and for which, the GLOCAL provides ample assistance, and will stringently work with authors to increase the likelihood that the submissions will pass the blind peer review processes.

Following on from the above, only papers from authors who have participated in the conferences, and have hence passed the conderence review processes, are eligible for consideration for the conference proceedings books. The GLOCAL will not at any point accept financial contributions for consideration, and similarly, from those scholars who have not participated in GLOCAL events.