Letters to Language

Language accepts letters from readers that briefly and succinctly respond to or comment upon either material published previously in the journal or issues deemed of importance to the field. The editor reserves the right to edit letters as needed. Brief replies from relevant parties are included as warranted.

Reviewing Procedures

January 19, 2007

To the Editor:

Concerning Colin Phillips’s suggestions for speeding up the review cycle at Language, I would like to point out that the Cognitive Science Society, which publishes the journal Cognitive Science, already employs a reviewer rating system. Associate editors (AEs) optionally assign two scores to each review, one for usefulness and one for timeliness. Members of the editorial board can also recommend that an individual be barred from reviewing. Reviewers and editors can see reviewers’ average scores and scores for individual reviews. According to editor Art Markman (p.c.), the editorial board uses these features somewhat sporadically, however. Adopting a similar system, along with electronic submission and electronic nagging, might help bring the review cycles for Language more in line with those in related fields.

I believe that review cycles might be shortened even more if at least some of the correspondence about suggested revisions were to be handled by AEs, rather than being left entirely to the editor. AEs can report to the editor once they are ready to make a final recommendation for publication or rejection. That way, once all the reviews for a manuscript are in, an AE can respond directly to the author, rather than preparing a report for the editor, who then needs to reread the (new or revised) submission and the reviews before responding to the author. The editor could still handle each new submission, at least long enough to decide whether it should go out for review at all and if so, which AE should be in charge. And the editor could consider each submission once the AE had made a recommendation, and accept or reject papers, if necessary against an AE’s recommendation, for example, based on comparisons with other submissions.

Editor’s reply

This proposal and the comparison with another field are welcome and interesting. To a large extent, these suggestions codify the system we actually use. On the one hand, they do envision greater rigor in the rating of reviewers (which we do on an informal basis in the editorial office) and in the use of electronic submission (which we require, though some of our work still is based on hard-copy submissions since some reviewers and other readers (like me!) still prefer hard copy) and electronic nagging (which we do as polite but insistent reminders, on a regular basis but perhaps not as often as could be done). On the other hand, they point to a greater degree of flexibility in the end stages of the review process than I personally am comfortable with; in order to achieve the evenness across all submissions alluded to above, I have felt that I need to take an active role in regard to the ultimate decision on each and every paper. I certainly welcome the discussion on process, and other editors may indeed see the editor’s role differently. These suggestions can then be seen as changes in the review procedures that the next editor of Language might want to consider; for the remainder of my term, though, given that I have worked with a particular system for five years, I expect to continue in the manner I have.

Grammar and usage: The discussion continues

January 31, 2007

To the Editor:

In a recent edition of Language (82.4.705–6, 2006), Frederick Newmeyer (N) replies to my letter to Language (81.3.561–63; G 2005) addressing his earlier work on grammar and usage (Language 81.1.229–36, 2005 and 79.4.682–707, 2003). N’s letter highlights the differences between our approaches, but does not always respond to the arguments I raised. No doubt N was constrained, as I am, by the letter format and the consequent limitations on space, but we must avoid the peril of talking past each other. Hence in this...