Focus and Scope
The purpose of Anglisticum Journal (AJ) is to publish articles relevant to field of English Literature, Linguistics and Interdisciplinary Studies.
The field of Literature includes American Literature, Eighteenth Century Literature, Literary Theory, Medieval Literature, Renaissance Literature, Romanticism, Seventeenth Century Literature, Shakespearean Literature, Victorian Literature, Twentieth Century and Contemporary Literature, Comparative Literature, etc.
The field of Linguistics includes Applied Linguistics, Language Teaching, Computational Linguistics, Discourse Analysis, Historical Linguistics, Psycholinguistics, Language Acquisition, Sociolinguistics, Bilingualism, Language and Gender, Language Variation and Change, Speech Science, Perception, Theoretical Linguistics, Morphology, Phonology, Phonetics, Pragmatics, Semantics and Syntax.
The field of Interdisciplinary studies includes Creative and Performing Arts, Humanities, Science, Social science.
The disciplines most commonly associated with the Creative and Performing Arts are: Creative Writing, Film (production), Music (performance), Theatre Design and Production, Visual Art.
Among the Humanities disciplines are: Archaeology, Art History, History, Language, Linguistics, Literature, Philosophy, Religious Studies, Women’s Studies.
In the science category are included: Astronomy, Atmospheric Sciences, Biochemistry, Biology, Animal Biology, Cell and Developmental Biology, Conservation Biology, Ecology and Environmental Biology, General Biology, Genetics, Geographical Biogeosciences, Marine Biology, Plant Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Earth and Ocean Sciences, Geological Sciences, Geophysics, Oceanography, Mathematics, Microbiology, Nutritional Science, Pharmacology, Healthcare, Sports, Physiology, Physics, Psychology, Statistics.
The disciplines most commonly associated with the Social Sciences are: Anthropology, Economics, Family Studies, Geography, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology, Urban Studies, Women’s Studies.
Its editorial team will consider academically robust papers and will welcome Editorials, Letters to the Publisher, Research Articles, Case Studies, Reflective Essays, Review Articles, Research Briefs, Policy Briefs, Conference Proceeding and/or Abstracts, Commentaries, Viewpoints and other work which are of scientific value and interest.
All papers are double-blind peer reviewed and are checked with TURNITIN software.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Types of Submissions
In an effort to accommodate the vast array of needs and interests, ANGLISTICUM – International Journal for Literature, Linguistics & Interdisciplinary Studies accepts a wide range of manuscript types, such as:
Editorials (up to 500 words; not peer reviewed)
Editorials provide commentary by the publisher, members of the Editorial Committee (advisors and reviewers), and others related to the Journal's mission as well as the general interest to our readers. Unsolicited editorials will be considered for publication. Acceptance will reside with the publisher and managing editor.
Letters to the Publisher (up to 500 words; not peer reviewed)
Letters to the Editor simply address matters of general interest to the readership. Letters are reviewed by the publisher and managing editor and are subject to editing and possible abridgment. Letters to the Editor should not include original, unpublished data.
Research Articles (up to 8,500 words; peer reviewed)
Research articles present important new research results including the entire contents of a research project. Quantitative studies include statistical analysis of survey or secondary data. Qualitative studies include case studies, focus groups, or interviews, and the like. Research articles generally include an abstract, an introduction, methods and results sections, a discussion, and relevant citations. Authors of research articles are required to adhere to our policy of accessible scholarship.
Case Studies (up to 5,000 words; peer reviewed)
A case study is a report of a single case (generally deemed 'interesting' or 'unusual'). These studies usually are generated by the author’s actual experience or objective observations. This is a popular form of manuscript among practitioners. It is critical that the case study be objective and not promotional. The case should feature a new program approach, best practice, or organizational structure. It should present sufficient references to previous studies of the issue the case is focused on to embed (provide context) for this new case study to build on.
Reflective Essays (up to 5,000 words; peer reviewed)
A reflective essay is a critical reflection on one’s work or the work of one’s organization related to a specific issue or strategy. It is similar to a case study but it is a more personal slant and subjectivity. This is material which might have a more popular journalistic style but also has much deeper substance than a trade journal article. These could take the form of a case study, a project post-mortem analysis (why a project failed), a policy commentary, a position paper on a best practice, or even a proposal for a new strategy, technique, or approach.
Review articles (up to 8,500 words; peer reviewed)
Review articles do not cover original research but rather accumulate the results of many different articles on a particular topic into a coherent narrative about the state of the art in the emerging field food systems and agricultural development. Review articles provide information about the topic and also provide journal references to the original research.
Research Briefs (up to 2,500 words; peer reviewed)
A research brief is generally an update of ongoing research of national or international significance. It is typically a follow-up to a research paper already submitted, but may also be a paper providing preliminary findings of a new study. Research briefs may be fast-tracked for immediate publication because they are considered urgent.
Policy Briefs (up to 2,500 words; peer reviewed)
A policy brief is a thorough analysis of a proposed, new, or existing government or organizational policy which focuses on the background of a policy issue, the details of the policy, and its real or predicted impacts on the issue. Like research briefs, policy briefs may be fast-tracked for immediate publication because they are considered urgent.
Conference proceeding and/or abstracts (up to 8,500 words; not peer reviewed)
Proceedings provide short summaries of in-progress or completed primary studies that are presented at conferences, but are not yet fully peer-reviewed for publication as complete articles. Conference proceeding and/or abstracts thus provide an 'early picture' of current research that is likely to appear later in one or more of the primary article forms listed above. Because selection processes are highly variable, the quality of conference proceeding and/or abstracts vary widely.
Commentaries (up to 1,000 words; rebutted; not peer reviewed)
Commentaries are reactions or viewpoints based on papers of unusual interest published in the journal. They should describe the most important conclusions of the paper they are commenting on; place the paper into context with the current state-of-the-art; highlight controversial issues; when relevant, denote strengths and weaknesses of the paper; and review questions that remain to be addressed. If a commentary is found acceptable, a copy will be sent to the author of the original article, if applicable; that author will have an opportunity to provide a rebuttal with new material that will be considered for publication with the letter.
Viewpoints (up to 1,500 words; rebutted; not peer reviewed)
Viewpoint articles are intended to present an insightful, thoroughly documented slant on a topic for which opinions are either controversial or undecided in the literature. The hope is that the readership will benefit from a new unconventional viewpoint on a topic. In addition, brief commentary (250 words, 5 references) will be solicited from the readership. The hope here is to use the journal to promote communication among practitioners and researchers, and therefore further understanding. Hopefully, new ideas and improved designs for future research on these topics should follow. Some articles will be invited; we also welcome unsolicited manuscripts. The Viewpoint manuscript must be concise, to the point, and bring novel new insights on a specific problem. Refer only to already peer-reviewed, published findings. Abstract is required; the title of the manuscript should be as descriptive as possible of the problem and or viewpoint being presented. Authors should provide a list of 5-10 names and emails of individuals who may be interested in providing commentary on their Viewpoint.
Peer Review Process
Once a manuscript is submitted, it is assigned to an Editor most appropriate to handle it, based on the subject of the manuscript and the availability of the Editors. If the Editor determines that the manuscript is not of sufficient quality to go through the normal review process or if the subject of the manuscript is not appropriate to the journal scope, the Editor rejects the manuscript with no further processing.
If the Editor determines that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, he/she assigns the manuscript to a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 5 external reviewers for peer-review. The reviewers submit their reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendation of one of the following actions to the Editor:
- Accept submission (Publish Unaltered)
- Revisions required (Consider after Minor Changes)
- Resubmit for review (Consider after Major Changes)
- Decline submission (Reject: Manuscript is flawed or not sufficiently novel)
When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the Editor can make one of the following editorial recommendations: Publish Unaltered, Consider after Minor Changes, Consider after Major Changes, Reject.
If the Editor recommends "Publish Unaltered," the manuscript is accepted for publication.
If the Editor recommends "Consider after Minor Changes," the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes suggested by the reviewers. The Editor reviews the revised manuscript after the minor changes have been made by the authors. Once the Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, the manuscript can be accepted.
If the Editor recommends "Consider after Major Changes," the recommendation is communicated to the authors. The authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the changes recommended by the reviewers and to submit their revised manuscript in a timely manner. Once the revised manuscript is submitted, the Editor can then make an editorial recommendation which can be "Publish Unaltered" or "Consider after Minor Changes" or "Reject".
If the Editor recommends rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. Also, if two of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. The editorial workflow gives the Editors the authority in rejecting any manuscript because of inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results. The Editor cannot assign himself/herself as an external reviewer of the manuscript. This is to ensure a high-quality, fair, and unbiased peer-review process of every manuscript submitted to the journal, since any manuscript must be recommended by one or more (usually two or more) external reviewers along with the Editor in charge of the manuscript in order for it to be accepted for publication in the journal.
The peer-review process is double blinded, i.e., the reviewers do not know who the authors of the manuscript are and the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer-reviewers are. Without the significant contributions made by peer reviewers, the publication of the journal would not be possible.