Please use the following criteria when assessing a paper in your review.

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?
• 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)?

Content

• How does the paper contribute to a better understanding of ‘constructions’?
• How ‘original’ and innovative is the contribution?
• How does the paper
  • relate to theoretical questions?
  • include empirical data? (And if so, how do you judge the methodology chosen?)
  • relate to applied issues?
• Would you regard this paper as a potential lead article for discussion/peer commentaries?

Final judgement:

(a) publish

(b) publish with minor revisions

(c) publish with major revisions

(d) revise and resubmit

(e) reject

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.

Reviews are due within 6 weeks. This is a very strict deadline in order to safeguard timely publication. In other words, if we haven’t heard from you by then, the article will automatically go to another reviewer.