Glossa Psycholinguistics generally adheres to the COPE guidelines, which describes a series of policies and norms aimed at upholding integrity in the publishing process. 

Authorship 

Please refer to the Authorship Guidelines for a detailed description of our policies regarding authorship in Glossa Psycholinguistics.

Complaints and appeals

If an author has submitted work to Glossa Psycholinguistics and wishes to appeal an editorial decision, they should first contact the handling editor. Appeals are possible if a reviewer or the handling editor has made a fundamental error in evaluating the work, or if there is a concern about a conflict of interest. Any such a request should clearly detail the reason(s) for the appeal. Upon receipt of such a request, the handling editor will inform one of the Editors-in-Chief. Together, the handling editor and the Editors-in-Chief will review the request and the decision. In some cases, another member of the editorial team may be consulted.

Following this review, the handling editor will inform the author of the outcome. If the decision reverses a manuscript rejection, the author will be invited to resubmit the manuscript with appropriate revisions. If the original decision is affirmed, the author will be informed and no further appeals will be considered. In a typical case, the outcome of the appeal will be decided within a month. If the process requires more time, the author will be informed.

Complaints concerning time to decision and other aspects of the review should be directed first to the handling editor, and then to one of the Editors-in-Chief. The issue will be investigated and the author will be informed concerning its resolution. 

Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions

If a journal reader has concerns about the content of a published article, they may express these concerns to the editorial team at Glossa Psycholinguistics. Depending on the nature of the concern, it may be appropriate to consider a correction or retraction. In navigating an expression of concern or other post-publication critique, Glossa Psycholinguistics follows COPE policies as described here.

Note that the journal does not solicit post-publication critiques. However, if issues regarding an article are raised by a reader, the procedures described in the COPE flowchart are followed: The Editors-in-Chief and the handling editor (if different) discuss the issue that has been raised and alert eScholarship, publisher of the journal. If the concern appears to have merit, authors are asked to support the claim or finding that is under challenge. Based on the information, the editors will determine whether a correction or retraction is necessary. If an article is corrected or retracted, this information is clearly marked and the basis for the decision is stated. 

Conflicts of interest / Competing interests

The journal makes every effort to avoid conflicts of interest among authors, reviewers, and editors. When editors have a conflict of interest concerning an author or authors of a manuscript, they are required to step aside from any discussions or decisions regarding that submission. If there is an irreducible conflict of interest (e.g. with one of the Editors in Chief), then a manuscript is transferred to our sister journal Glossa: A general journal of linguistics. In this case, the editorial team at Glossa: A general journal of linguistics will evaluate a manuscript’s suitability for publication in Glossa Psycholinguistics, who will follow their editorial decision without further review.

Reviewers who have a conflict of interest with an author are required to decline the review. Conflicts may arise due to personal or professional relationships, ongoing or recent advisory or mentorship roles, recent joint projects, or affiliations with the same institution. The definition of conflict of interest used by the National Science Foundation guides the journal’s decision-making; see this website for more details.

Data and reproducibility

Please refer to the Open Data Guidelines on our website for a detailed description of our policies regarding Open Data requirements in Glossa Psycholinguistics. To promote reproducibility, the Journal also publishes Registered Reports and articles on the reproducibility features of published psycholinguistic research.

Funding

Authors are required to acknowledge any funding that supported the work reported in an article. This acknowledgement is to be included as part of the acknowledgements section in the paper, as detailed in our statement on the structure of submissions.

Research ethics

Policies regarding research ethics follow the COPE guidelines stated here. In addition, all research involving human subjects must be approved or reviewed by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). This information must be included with every published article that makes use of such data. Subjects must be given the opportunity to provide informed consent, according to guidelines issued by the American Psychological Association (APA).  

Plagiarism and re-use of text

Glossa Psycholinguistics strongly endorses and promotes two key principles of scholarly publishing:

(1) Authors should retain rights of ownership over their own work. This ownership is reflected in the CC BY 4.0 license of all Glossa Psycholinguistics articles. The CC BY license means that the author gives other people the right to share, use, and build upon their article, provided proper credit is given. The author remains the sole owner of their article, and can use and share it as they see fit.

(2) Transparency is critical to scientific integrity. Transparency is defined as the ethical obligation of researchers to make data, analyses, methods, and interpretive choices underlying their claims visible and accessible in a way that allows others to evaluate them.

Based on these two principles, we have developed a set of policies regarding the use of text from previous publications:

Authors may freely re-use text describing empirical procedures, equipment, computational models, or data analysis methods drawn from their own previously published work, based on principles of fair use. Always keep in mind the purpose and character of your use, and the amount and substantiality of the part taken in proportion to the rest of the paper.

Authors may also adapt text describing empirical procedures, equipment, computational models, or data analysis methods drawn from other authors’ publications, if doing so would promote clarity and transparency.
In both cases, the scope of the recycled or adapted text should be clearly identified in the text itself and acknowledged with a footnote stating the original source and including a citation.

The rationale for these policies is that authors often put great effort into attempting to paraphrase previously published content to avoid any charges of plagiarism. However, those paraphrases may introduce inaccuracies that undermine the ability of other researchers to understand and replicate empirical and data analysis methods. The above policies are intended to ensure efficiency and accuracy as authors prepare manuscripts reporting their scientific contributions, whose originality we will evaluate based on the ideas, methods, and results reported. Re-use of text outside these guidelines will be treated as potential plagiarism and a violation of the COPE Code of Conduct for authors.

A related issue concerns the use of AI tools in the preparation of manuscripts. Glossa Psycholinguistics does not use plagiarism or AI detectors. Because articles are treated as confidential documents, we do not allow the use of any form of generative AI for reviewing or editorial purposes. Any submitted article that contains content generated by AI (including AI-generated text that is modified by the user or text that has been enhanced for readability using AI) must be explicitly labeled. 

For further guidance on these matters, authors should consult the COPE guidelines on authorship and AI tools, which Glossa Psycholinguistics adheres to.