1. Publishing in Theoretical Linguistics Journals

2. Before you submit to a journal… Make sure the paper is as good as possible. Get any feedback that you can. Papers in major journals typically have a large number of acknowledgements. An example: ‘At various times I have benefited from the comments of David Adger, Emily Bender, Andreas Kathol, Ad Neeleman, Adam Przepiórkowski, Andrew Radford, Louisa Sadler, Ivan Sag, Nick Sobin, Andrew Spencer, and especially Maggie Tallerman and David Willis.’

3. Present your paper at conferences if you can. Bring your paper to the attention of anyone who might be interested. You can’t lose anything by sending your paper to potentially interested people and you might gain something.

4. Target the right kind of journal. Journal of Linguistics sometimes gets contributions from people who apparently think that it publishes work concerned with any aspect of linguistics. It doesn’t. It publishes articles that ‘make a clear contribution to current debate in all branches of theoretical linguistics’, not typical applied linguistics or descriptive work with no particular theoretical implications.

5. The focus of some journals Language, Journal of Linguistics, Lingua, Linguistics – theoretical linguistics in a broad sense (including some kinds of psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics) Natural Language & Linguistic Theory – syntax of various kinds and phonology Linguistic Inquiry – Chomskyan syntax (in a fairly narrow sense) and phonology

6. Target a journal at an appropriate level. Some of your work may be suitable for the most prestigious journal, but it is not likely that all of it will be. Don’t try the best journal in your field unless you are confident that you have a paper that is exceptionally good.

7. The pecking order in theoretical linguistics journals Language, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, Linguistic Inquiry Journal of Linguistics Lingua, Linguistics

8. Submissions to Journal of Linguistics Only 20-30 per cent of papers are accepted. Papers are never accepted without any revisions. We often require quite substantial revisions to good papers by well known linguists. Some papers are rejected without being sent to referees because they are not suitable for the Journal.

9. You need to understand the response that you get from the journal. Does it suggest that revisions of a certain kind will lead to an acceptable paper? Or not? If the response is ‘publish with major/minor revisions’ you can be optimistic. Optimism may or may not be justified if the response is ‘revise and resubmit’.

10. Some examples of editor’s messages I have now received a report on the revised version of your paper ‘…’, which I am attaching to this e-mail. As you will see, the referee recommends publication but after some further revision. If you can revise it once more to address the various points that he/she raises, I will be happy to accept it for publication in the Journal. When you send the revised version, please indicate how exactly you have revised it.

11. I have now received two reports on your paper ‘…’, which I am attaching to this e-mail. As you will see, referee A is fairly positive about the paper, but referee B recommends rejection, and it seems to me that he/she has identified some important problems....... I would be happy to consider a revised version of the paper, but it looks to me as if some further thought and quite a lot of revision is necessary.

12. I have finally received two reports on your paper ‘…’, which I am attaching to this e-mail. As you will see, both referees feel that the paper has some potential, but they also think that it has some major weaknesses. Both suggest that it is not well focused, and referee A suggests that it is ‘three papers in one’. Referee B suggests that more connections to previous literature are necessary and that the paper needs to be completely restructured and rewritten. I think you may have the basis of a publishable paper here, but very substantial revisions would be necessary. If you would like to revise the paper to address the points the two referees raise, I would be happy to consider it again. If/when you send a revised version, please indicate how exactly you have revised it.

13. I have now received two reports on your paper ‘…’, which I am attaching to this e-mail. As you will see, Referee A says revise and resubmit, but referee B recommends rejection. I would be prepared to consider a revised version. I think, however, that the paper would need to be revised very considerably to be suitable for Journal of Linguistics.

14. Look carefully at the comments of the referees and the editor. If you are invited to revise and resubmit, you are normally being asked to attempt to satisfy the referees. You need to make a judgment on whether or not you can do this. Papers are not normally considered more than twice. Only resubmit if you are confident that you know what is required to produce an acceptable paper.

15. You may think the referees are misguided but you are unlikely to be able to convince the editor that this is the case. However, if the referees’ comments are in conflict so that there is no possibility of satisfying both of them the editor ought to provide some guidance on how to proceed. If he/she doesn’t, you could ask for guidance. If it is clear that here is no possibility of satisfying one of the referees, e.g. because he/she rejects the basic approach you are taking, the editor should be aware of this. If editor apparently isn’t, you could raise it with him/her.

16. If after careful consideration you are fairly confident that you can satisfy the referees you should revise your paper and resubmit it. When you resubmit you should spell out the nature of the revisions (whether or not the editor has asked you to).

17. If after careful consideration you are not fairly confident that you can satisfy the referees you should try a less prestigious journal (after making appropriate revisions). Most people do this at one time or another.

18. If you decide to try another journal you might tell the editor that you previously submitted it to the first journal. Assuming that the first journal is known to be more prestigious the fact that you did not get accepted there will not count against you. The editor may well discover that you previously tried the other journal as a result of using one of the same referees.

19. A recent message to me as editor of Journal of Linguistics I’ve either submitted it to or sounded out Journal1 (who said they no longer review papers which don’t report experimental results), Journal2 (who said it was too narrow for their readership) and Journal3 (who basically wanted me to revise and resubmit a different paper). I still feel that the paper as it is, or nearly enough as it is, has something useful to say to linguists, and several people who've read it agree. So, would you be willing to consider it for JL?

20. However, you are not obliged to reveal the history of your paper.