The journal’s editorial policy. Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Baltic Linguistics publishes only original contributions that have not already been published or accepted for publication elsewhere, be it in the same or another language. Contributors should confirm that this is the case upon submission of their manuscript. Material already accepted for publication in the journal should not subsequently be submitted for publication elsewhere without the consent of the editors.

Articles submitted to Baltic Linguistics are evaluated by at least two reviewers. The usual procedure is that the article is sent to one external reviewer who is competent in the branch of linguistic research to which the article is related, whereas a member of the editorial board is asked to evaluate it not only from a general linguistic perspective but also from the narrower angle of Baltic scholarship. If nobody among the members of the editorial board feels sufficiently at home in the relevant branch of linguistic research, a second external reviewer is approached. In doubtful cases the editorial board may decide that more than two reviews are needed.

In evaluating submissions the reviewers take into account the criteria of originality (see above); correct methodology; relevance to linguistic theory; relevance to Baltic scholarship (new data, novel analysis); grounding in linguistic literature; reliability of linguistic data; general quality of scholarship; clarity of writing.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The ethics statements for our journal are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and on Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement requirements, June 2015.

Editors’ responsibilities
Baltic Linguistics publishes papers that adhere to the journal’s profile in their degree of generality, theoretical relevance and relevance to Baltic linguistics. Submitted manuscripts are evaluated on the basis of academic value only, i.e. their originality, correct methodology, relevance to linguistic theory, relevance to Baltic scholarship, grounding in linguistic literature, reliability of linguistic data and general quality of scholarship. Author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation do not influence editorial decisions.
The decisions to publish papers are made exclusively by the Editorial Board, without outside influence of governmental and other agencies.
Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate and will assure that the same degree of confidentiality is maintained by reviewers and editorial advisers.
Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished material from submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.
The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field. The Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor are responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Editors and the Editorial board shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred. In no case shall they encourage such misconduct, or knowingly allow it to take place.
All allegations of research misconduct will be dealt with appropriately. Should the author wish to correct their articles, publish retractions or apologies, the Editors shall ensure that these are published wherever needed.

Authors and Authors’ responsibilities
Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately referenced, including publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript. The same standards apply to previously published Authors’ work.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, interpretation or the act of writing of the paper. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as informants, writing and editing assistance, technical support, etc.) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section.
Authors should take care to anonymize their manuscript in such a way that enables double blind review process.
Authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Conversely, material already accepted for publication in the journal should not subsequently be submitted for publication elsewhere without the consent of the editors.
Authors should disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript.
All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).
In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.
Should the authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. The same applies if the error or inaccuracy is brought to their attention by the editor, or by a third party.

Reviewers’ responsibilities
Before any manuscript is published, it undergoes a double blind peer-review. Peer-review is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers’ expert in the field.
Peer-review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavor. Scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
A contacted referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted. The same applies to an invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript, should they be able to identify them in the submitted text.
Reviews should be conducted in an objective way, applying the academic criteria of evaluation. Observations and criticisms should formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Grounds for rejecting paper should be explicitly stated and argued. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.
If aware of any, reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
Referee’s observations, arguments or comments that are based on material reported in previous publications, either of the referee or of other persons, should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Material presented in the submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research, unless properly acknowledged via citation. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to reviewers who decline the review invitation
Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
The reviewing procedure is strictly anonymous on both sides. Authors should therefore be careful to eliminate all hints at authorship in their manuscripts.
A precondition for an article to be reviewed is that it conforms to the journal’s profile and editorial policy, particularly with reference to degree of generality, theoretical relevance and relevance to Baltic linguistics. Taking these criteria into account, the editors decide, after having consulted the editorial board, whether an article qualifies for a further evaluation procedure.