Guidelines on the submission of articles to PYIL and the review
1. In order to reduce instances of research and publication misconduct,
the PYIL staff strictly follows the principles listed below. By
submitting an article to PYIL, an author agrees to comply with those
principles. The same applies to reviewers upon the acceptance of
arequest for review.
2. All submissions should comply with the relevant requirements set
outin the document entitled “Information for authors”, which is
available on the PYIL’s webpage.
3. Manuscripts need be submitted in Microsoft Word format (any version).
Unless specifically indicated otherwise, the deadline for submitting
articles is 31 January of each year. The yearly volume of PYIL is
normally published between June and July of the same year.
4. Submissions should not exceed 10,000 words (including footnotes),
although in exceptional cases PYIL may accept longer works. All
submissions should be sufficiently referenced. The Editorial Board
assesses manuscripts on a rolling basis. It will consider requests for
expedited review in appropriate instances (for example, pending
acceptance for publication from another journal).On averageit takes
about45 days to complete the evaluation of a text, although in some
instances this process may be longer, depending on the availability of
5. Manuscripts may besubmitted by e-mail (email@example.com)
or through the ExpressO submission system
6. All reviewed manuscripts are treated confidentially. Members of the
Eduitorial Board must not use materials disclosed in a submission for
their own research unless the text is published.
7. All submissions are subject to initial verification by the Editorial
Board to determine whether they meet basic editorial requirementsand are
compatible with the scientific interests of the journal. This assessment
also aims at eliminating those papers where research misconduct
occurred. If the Editorial Board’s assessmentis positive, submitted
articles are sent out to two independent reviewers,who are identified by
PYIL’s specialist editors taking into account the rules setout here.
8. The reviewers cannot be affiliated with the institution with which
the author is affiliated. The reviewers assess the text based on the
double blind-peer review principle, i.e. the name of the author is not
revealed to the reviewers nor are the reviewers’ names revealed to the
author or the other reviewer. In case of articles submitted by a foreign
authorat least one of the reviewers must be affiliated with a foreign
institution other than that of the author.
9. Reviews are submitted in written form, which also encompasses
electronic and/or e-mail communications. The reviewer must submit his or
her review on aReview form provided to the reviewer together with the
text for review. A Review form is available on thePYIL’s webpage. The
principles governing a review are set forth below.
10. The review should clearly indicate whether, in the reviewer’s
opinion, the textshould be published. The reviewer may also indicate
changes which should be made to the text prior to its publication. These
changes may be noted in the Review form or may be offered in the form of
commentaries in the text of the article.
11. The Editorial Board will accept a submitted text if both reviewers
recommend publication. In the event the reviewers indicate that changes
are necessary, the acceptance of the article is conditional upon the
author responding to the suggested changes, either by implementation of
the same or offering an explanation why they may be not acceptable to
the author, in whole or in part. The Editorial Board may, to the extent
it deems necessary and following consultation with the specialist
editor(s), send the revised text back to the original reviewers for
their further opinion.
12. In the event of receipt of a single negative review, the Editorial
Board will decide the issue of publication of the text in consultation
with the specialist editor. The Editorial Board may also send the text
to a third reviewer. In the event both original reviewers give a
negative opinion of asubmitted article, it will be automatically
13. An author of atext submitted to PYIL is obliged to cooperate with
the Editorial Board as well as with reviewers. In particular,an author
shall participate in the peer-review process to the extent required to
make his/her submission ready for publication. This includes, inter
alia, implementation of changes suggested by the reviewers or offering
an explanation why such changes, in whole or in part,may be not
14. Authors are under an obligation to report to the Editorial Board any
significant errors in their submissions, whether discovered during the
review process or after publication. If significant errors are found
after publication, authors agree to either retract the paper or publish
a correction/clarification.The detailed procedure for retraction and
corrections is included in the document entitled “Information for
15.Texts already published shall not be accepted,but PYIL does not
prohibit parallel submissions. Copyright and licensing information is
included in the document entitled “Information for authors”.
Guidelines for reviewers
1. The PYIL Editorial Board requests a professional review of asubmitted
article with regard to its scholarly merits.
2. The object of the requested review is todeterminewhether the
submitted article meets the scholarly standards for a scientific article
of its type. In particular,the reviewer is asked to assess:
a.whether the title of the article is correct and accurately reflects
b.whether the article is clear and concise (a reviewer may suggest
shortening the article or certain parts thereof);
c.whether the conclusions presented by the author are consistent with
the data contained in the article;
d.whether the author useda proper methodology;e.whether the article is
original and contains new information;
f.whether the article accurately presents the current state of knowledge
and research in a given area (including appropriate citations of and
referrals to the existing literature).
3. The reviewer is requested to perform his or her review according to
the above criteria in an objective and unbiased fashion. In addition,the
reviewer is asked to indicate any and all places where, in the
reviewer’s opinion, the author violated any norms of fair, diligent, and
accurate scientific research (for example, instances of plagiarism). The
review should be neutral and objective, internally consistent, and end
with a clear conclusion concerning the usefulness of the text for
scientific purposes. The reviewer may also suggest amendments to the
text, including indicationsof any relevant published work which isnot
citedin the text.
4. Although the review process in based on the double blind-peer review
principle, reviewers should refuse the review request if they are aware
of any conflict of interest that may exist.
5. Reviewers shall notify the Editorial Board if they feel unqualified
to conduct a review of a particular submission.
6. Reviewers should complete their reviews within a timeframe specified
by the Editorial Board or one of its members.
7. Reviewers must treat the submissions received for review as
confidential documents and must not disclose any information about them
to anyone other than the Editorial Board.
8. Reviewers must not use materials disclosed in a submission for their
own research unless the text is published.
9.The list of the reviewers is published in each volume and on the