“Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics”
Instructions for Reviewers
The Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics (ESUKA/JEFUL)
publishes linguistic articles and large-scale studies on Estonian and other FinnoUgric languages as well as special theme issues. Papers on general linguistics are
published only when they draw on data from Estonian or other Finno-Ugric
languages or when the treatment is important for the study of Estonian and other
Finno-Ugric languages. The journal is open to contributions from anyone who
may wish to submit. The only criterion for publication is the quality of the
submission, which is decided on the basis of blind peer review (the names of the
author and reviewer are both kept anonymous). The journal has an international
advisory board, which includes neither the editor-in-chief nor the other members
of the editorial board. The journal aims to stimulate the study of Estonian and
other Finno-Ugric languages and to raise the standards of research for the
discipline as a whole.
Papers published in ESUKA/JEFUL must meet certain criteria relating to
audience, technical content, and presentation.
The following form is designated to help reviewers evaluate manuscripts
submitted to ESUKA/JEFUL. If revisions are recommended, reviewers should be
as specific as possible in describing changes and should indicate which changes
are recommended and which are obligatory. If a paper is rejected because it is
outside the scope of journal, reviewers are requested to recommend that the paper
be submitted elsewhere. If a paper is considered unpublishable, reviewers should
reject it completely.
Please look at the manuscript soon after receiving it and return the review as
soon as possible (but no later than 4 weeks after receiving the paper).
Please return the review to:
ESUKA/JEFUL Editor
E-mail: Urmas.Sutrop@eki.ee
In the case of special issues please send the review to the guest editor.
Note on Reviewer confidentiality
The editors of ESUKA/JEFUL never disclose the names of reviewers to authors.
Reviewers should regard a submitted manuscript as a confidential document. They
should not use or disclose unpublished information in a manuscript except with the
permission of author(s). Since there is no direct communication between author(s)
and reviewer(s) concerning a manuscript, that permission can only be obtained via
the Editors.
***************************************
ESUKA/JEFUL
Review Form
Reviewer name: ..................................................................................
Reviewer address: ...............................................................................
.............................................................................................................
Paper title: ...........................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
Date: ...........................................
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
1. General Recommendation (check one):
1.1. Publish as is ___
1.2. Acceptable with minor modifications ___
1.3. Might be accepted after major modifications ___
1.4. Unacceptable (check all that apply) ___
1.4.1. Not appropriate for ESUKA/JEFUL ___
Which journal would be more appropriate
...............................................................................
...............................................................................
...............................................................................
1.4.2. Technically deficient ___
1.4.3. Quality of presentation is poor ___
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
2. Summary Comments for Author(s).Please enter the appropriate word from the
choices in parentheses
2.1. Interest of the subjects to readers of ESUKA/JEFUL (High/Medium/Low)
......................
2.2. Originality of the paper (High/Medium/Low) ......................
2.3. Adequate references to prior and related works by other authors
(High/Medium/Low) ......................
2.4. Accurate information (Yes/No) .........................
2.5. Current information (Yes/No) .......................
2.6. Methodology (Yes/No) ...........................
2.7. Writing style is generally (Excellent/Readable/Poor) ....................
2.7.1. Paper is logically organised (Yes/No) ....................
2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented (Yes/No) ....................
2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style) (Yes/No) …..........
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
3. Written Comments for Author(s)
Please enter your comments for the author(s) on your reason for accepting or
rejecting the paper.