Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Insights into Language, Culture and Communication (ILCC) is a bi-annual (June & December), uni-lingual (English) international peer-reviewed academic journal published to invigorate the creative, social, political and pedagogical issues raised by the advent of new technologies mainly in conjunction with language, culture and media.

ILCC provides interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary platforms in the areas of Humanities and Social Sciences aiming to contribute to a number of scholarly turns namely the cultural turn, the social turn, the digital turn, the narrative turn and the visual turn, etc. In this view, the journal calls for interdisciplinary studies that bring into dialogue what was considered previously as separated schools of thought. Adopting such an approach and published twice a year, ILCC is an international forum for the growing body of works in several interlocking disciplines, engages in critical discussions of key contemporary challenges, and opens up an entirely new line of research premised on a wide range of disciplinary perspectives.

 

 

Section Policies

Editorials

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Book Reviews

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Peer review is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out on all reputable scientific journals. Our referees therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of Insights into Language, Culture and Communication (ILCC) and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.

Overall process for publishing a paper is expected to take approximately 2 months after initial submission. Reviewing process will take about one month, and then publishing process will not exceed one other month.

 

1.    Initial manuscript evaluation

The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those 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 passed on to at least 2 experts for review.

Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will normally be informed within 2 to 3 weeks of receipt. 

 

2.    Type of Peer Review

This journal employs single blind reviewing, the author identity is disclosed to the referee, while the referee remains anonymous throughout the process.

 

3.    How the referee is selected

Referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Our database is constantly being updated. ILCC has a policy of using single blind refereeing (as detailed in the previous section), with neither referee from the country of the submitting author. We welcome suggestions for referees from the author though these recommendations may or may not be used. All submitted articles are sent to two reviewers.

 

4.    Referee reports

Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript support the followings key points related to scientific content, quality and presentation:

4.1.  Technical

  1. Scientific merit: notably scientific rigour, accuracy and correctness.
  2. Clarity of expression; communication of ideas; readability and discussion of concepts.
  3. Sufficient discussion of the context of the work, and suitable referencing.

4.2.  Quality

  1. Originality: Is the work relevant and novel?
  2. Motivation: Does the problem considered have a sound motivation? All papers should clearly demonstrate the scientific interest of the results.
  3. Repetition: Have significant parts of the manuscript already been published?
  4. Length: Is the content of the work of sufficient scientific interest to justify its length?

4.3.  Presentation

  1. Title: Is it adequate and appropriate for the content of the article?
  2. Abstract: Does it contain the essential information of the article? Is it complete? Is it suitable for inclusion by itself in an abstracting service?
  3. Diagrams, figures, tables and captions: Are they essential and clear?
  4. Text and mathematics: Are they brief but still clear? If you recommend shortening, please suggest what should be omitted.
  5. Conclusion: Does the paper contain a carefully written conclusion, summarizing what has been learned and why it is interesting and useful?

Referees are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process.

 

5.    How long does the review process take?

Typically, the manuscript will be reviewed within one month. Should the referees’ reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed a further expert opinion will be sought. All our referees sign a conflict of interest statement. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the initial referees within 1 week. Referees may request more than one revision of a manuscript.

 

6. Editorial decisions

After peer review and referee recommendation, the editor-in-chief, with the assistance of the associate editor, will study the paper together with reviewer comments to make one of the following decisions.

  • Accept
  • Accept pending minor revision: no external review required
  • Reject/Resubmit: major revisions needed and a new peer-review required
  • Reject

 

7.    Final report

A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees, and may include verbatim comments by the referees.

 

8. Special issues and/or conference proceedings

Special issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors, conference organisers or scientific committees. Authors contributing to these projects may receive full details of the peer review process on request from the editorial office.   Prospective organisers of a Special Issue should contact the Editor in the first instance to agree the appropriateness of content, the number and size of papers, the refereeing process (including the names of prospective referees), and the timescale for receipt of final copy after reviewing.

 

9. Charges and Fees

The journal is open-access with no charges (either Articles Processing Charges 'APCs' nor any submission charges). So ILCC is free of charge for authors and readers, and operates an online submission with the peer review system allowing authors to submit articles online and track their progress via its web interface.

 

 

 

 

Publication Frequency

This journal is published 2 times per year.

Each one volume per year has two issues, namley, one in June and one in December of each year.

Special issue could be issued separately sometime between the regular issues. This will be announced before publishing the special issue.

 

Open Access Policy

ILCC journal provides immediate open access to all content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. ILCC grants usage rights to others using the open license CC-BY-NC allowing for immediate free access to the work and permitting any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose.

 

Publishing Ethics

ILCC Statement on Publication Ethics:  

ILCC is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and to supporting ethical research practices. 

ILCC adheres to follow the Committee on Publication Ethics “COPE” Code of Conduct for Journal Editors

ILCC would like to refer reviewers to the Committee on Publication Ethics “COPE” Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

ILCC would also encourage authors to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics "COPE" website

The essentials of ILCC’s publishing ethics for all groups involved in the publishing process are as follows:

 Editors’ Responsibilities:

  • The editor should maintain the transparency of the academic research & record, preclude professional needs from cooperating ethical standards, and always be willing to publish retractions, rectifications, and erratum when required. 
  • The editor should attempt to ensure timely peer review and publication process and should avoid unnecessary delays. 
  • The editors and other editorial board members should not be involved in editorial decisions on their own submitted work. They should be excluded from publication decisions when they are authors or even have contributed to a manuscript. 
  • The editor should give peer reviewers explicit guidance on their role and responsibilities and monitor their performances for quality and timeliness. 
  • The editor should ensure confidential handling of the submitted manuscripts and not disclose any information on submitted manuscripts before their publication.
  • The editor should assess manuscripts for their scientific quality content, in an unbiased manner and free from any decisions based on discrimination of race, gender, geographical origin, or religion of the author(s). The editor should evaluate manuscripts regarding to their academic merit free of any self-interests. 
  • Promoting research rectitude must be preserved. If at any stage the publisher suspects any kind of misconduct in research, it should be investigated promptly in detail with suitable authority; and if any suspicious act of misconduct is observed in the peer review, it should be resolved with diligence. 

Peer Reviewers’ Responsibilities: 

  • Peer reviewers should provide a detailed, constructive, comprehensive, evidenced, and unbiased evaluation in a timely manner on the scientific content of the submitted work. They should judge each manuscript on its merits, without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, academic degree or institutional affiliation of the author(s). 
  • Peer reviewers should play an important role in identifying any ethical concerns or misconduct  in their evaluation of submitted manuscripts; such as possible data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, any violation of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects, unethical research, redundant or duplicate publication, conflict of interests and notify the journal editor as the possibility of such problems exists. 
  • Peer reviewers should notify the journal editor about any financial or personal conflict of interest and declining to review the manuscript when a possibility of such a conflict exists. 
  • Peer reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the complete review process. 
  • Peer reviewers should indicate whether the writing is relevant, concise & clear and evaluating the originality and scientific accuracy.
  • Peer reviewers must avoid making statements in their report which might affect any person’s reputation. 
  • Peer reviewers are required to only agree to peer review manuscripts within their expertise and within a reasonable timeframe. 
  • Peer reviewers should notify the journal editor in the case of declining the review in any case. 
  • Peer reviewers are required to destroy submitted manuscripts and all related material after they have reviewed them.  

Authors’ Responsibilities: 

  • Authors should make publicly available all the results of their research and are accountable for the completeness and accuracy of their reports. 
  • Author(s) should warrant that the submitted manuscript is from their own original work, which does not infringe the intellectual property rights of any other person or entity, and it is free from any kind of plagiarism including their own previously published work. 
  • All authors named on the paper are equally held accountable for the content of a submitted manuscript or published paper although having different contributions. 
  • The work should not have been published elsewhere or submitted to any other journal(s) at the same time. 
  • Author(s) must clearly declare any potential conflict of interest. 
  • Author(s) must disclose all sources of funding for the research reported in the paper. 
  • If asked to provide a list of suggested reviewers, author(s) must provide the correct details for suitable reviewers with the appropriate experience to review, ensuring that the suggested reviewers do not have a conflict of interest.
  • Proper acknowledgements to other work reported (individual/company/institution) must be given. Permission must be obtained from any content used from other sources.

 

Digital Object Identifier, DOI of the ILCC

Digital Object Identifier

The ILCC is supported by Digital Object Identifier, DOI for each article from Cross Ref as listed in HERE.

The Code of the DOI of each article consists of the following format:

10.21622/ILCC.YYYY.VV.I.PPP

Where

10.21622       = Journal Identifier

ILCC              = Journal name

YYYY              = Four digits for the year

VV                 = Two digits for the Volume Number 

I                    = One digit for the Issue Number

PPP                = Three digits for the Number of the first page of the article

 

To look for the paper on line, search for this link

http://dx.doi.org/10.21622/RESD.YYYY.VV.I.PPP