We invite high-quality papers on all aspects of language that take a constructionist approach (in the broadest sense). Both theoretical and empirical papers are welcome. Empirical papers can be work-in-progress reports, as long as the research question(s) and methods of analysis are made transparent. Needless to say, work-in-progress reports are subject to the same high standards of peer review as all other papers.
Open access policy
All new papers are published under a CC-BY 4.0 license by default. Authors can choose a different license upon request, preferably one of the Creative Commons licenses. As a minimum requirement, the license must ensure that the paper is openly available for everyone, for free, forever. Papers published before the transfer of "Constructions" to HHU Düsseldorf in 2021 are not published under Creative Commons licenses unless the authors explicitly requested it. Regardless of the license they choose, authors retain full copyright over their contributions.
Open data policy
Authors of empirical papers are required to include a data availability statement in their papers. We strongly encourage authors to make their datasets and analysis scripts publicly available, e.g. on repositories like OSF (for peer-review, an anonymized view-only link can be created on OSF).
To submit a paper, please register on this site (top right) and then log in with your username and password. After logging in, you can make a new submission here. You will be asked to upload your paper as a PDF file. Please make sure that the PDF file is anonymized to ensure double-blind peer review. There are no specific formatting requirements for initial submission. However, we encourage authors to use our typsetting templates (see section "Style guide" below).
Authors are welcome to upload preprints, accepted versions, and the final published versions of their papers on pertinent repositories, both non-commercial ones such as Psyarxiv and commercial ones such as ResearchGate. If it is not the final published version, the uploaded version should contain a statement that clearly states whether or not the paper has already undergone peer-review, e.g. "This is a preprint of paper XY submitted to Constructions" (with preprint indicating that the paper has not been reviewed yet) or "This is the accepted version/version of record of paper XY accepted for publication in Constructions".
Publication ethics and malpractice statement
The research reported in manuscripts submitted to Constructions must have been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and must comply with all relevant legislation. For details and best-practices, see Wager & Kleinert (2011), available here. The members of the editorial board, and the editors-in-chief in particular, will do their best to prevent misconduct by informing the authors of the ethical conduct required by them, and they will try to identify misconduct and deal with potential allegations of misconduct accordingly. In particular, this includes the possibility of retracting papers that have been found to be in violation of pertinent legal or ethical standards. Retraction means that a paper is still publicly accessible (unless there are important reasons for removing it entirely), but with a retraction notice.
Examples of misconduct include, but are not limited to:
- misrepresentation of authorship (e.g. uncredited co-authors, "honorary" authorships),
- fabricated data,
- undisclosed conflicts of interest relevant to the published paper.
To submit a complaint or raise a concern of potential misconduct, please contact the editors-in-chief in confidence. Our aim is to acknowledge complaints or appeals within 5 days of receipt. We will do our best to keep complainants updated throughout the process.
Wager E & Kleinert S (2011) Responsible research publication: international standards for authors. A position statement developed at the 2 nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. Chapter 50 in: Mayer T & Steneck N (eds) Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (pp 309-16). (ISBN 978-981-4340-97-7)
As "Constructions" is a platinum open-access journal, we have to kindly ask authors to typeset accepted papers themselves. We therefore strongly recommend to use our LaTeX template when writing a paper. Alternatively, you can use this Word template. For using it, you will have to install the free fonts Baskerville and IBM Plex Sans. This is not a prerequisite for submitting a paper, though - you can also submit in any other format and do the typesetting after peer review.
Peer Review Process
All papers submitted to Constructions are subject to double-blind peer review. We rely on at least two reviewers for initial submissions and at least one reviewer for resubmissions of papers for which the reviewers requested major revisions.
The peer reviewers are kindly asked to use the following criteria when assessing a paper:
Structure & presentation
- How clearly is the research question stated, and how clearly is the argument developed?
- Is the length of the contribution reasonable in relation to its content, merit, potential impact?
- Is the paper well accessible also to non-experts in the field?
- Is the paper convincing in terms of reader-friendliness/guidance, cohesion, clarity and precision of expression?
- Does the English need improvement/correction (the aim is a clear and grammatical variety of ‘Global (academic) English’ rather than a perfect specimen of British or American English)?
- In the case of empirical papers: Does the contribution include a data availability statement? Is the study presented in such a way that reproducibility and replicability are ensured?
- How does the paper contribute to a better understanding of ‘constructional modelling’?
- How original and innovative is the contribution?
- (How) Does the paper relate to theoretical questions?
- Does the paper include empirical data? (And if so, how do you judge the methodology chosen?)
- Is the methodology sufficiently and clearly explained?
- Is the methodology appropriate?
- Does the paper link the theoretical background to its data analysis?
- Does the paper have clear research questions/hypotheses?
- Would you regard this paper as a potential lead article for discussion/peer commentaries?
(b) publish with minor revisions
(c) publish with major revisions
(d) revise and resubmit
If you are, for any reason, unable to review a particular article, please let us know as soon as possible. In this case, it would be very helpful if you could suggest another suitable reviewer.
We kindly ask reviewers to submit their reports within 6 weeks in order to safeguard timely publication.
We reserve the right to desk-reject manuscripts that do not fit the journal's scope or are clearly insufficient in terms of quality.
We wish to thank all colleagues who have agreed to review for the journal!