1-Usage Agreement

Welcome to the journal "Al-Lisaniyyat" available in both print and electronic formats. By accessing and using our website, you agree to comply with the following terms and conditions. Please read these carefully. If you do not agree, refrain from using the site or accessing its content.

Acceptance of Terms :

Your use of the "AL-Lisaniyyat" journal via https: https://crstdla.dz/ojs/index.php  constitutes acceptance of this Agreement. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, warranties, and understandings regarding the site, its content, and services. We may amend this Agreement without prior notice; the latest version will be available on the site for your review before use.

Intellectual Property:

The content on our website is protected by intellectual property laws. Users may not copy, publish, or modify materials without proper attribution. Violations will be pursued under applicable laws.

Use and Citation :

Users must cite sources when quoting scientific material from the site, following academic conventions.

Editorial Rights:

The editorial team retains full authority to edit, amend, or delete content at their discretion, ensuring compliance with our publication policy.

Non-transferability :

Passwords provided for accessing restricted information must not be shared or transferred.

Website Services :

We are not liable for any damages resulting from the use of our website, whether direct or indirect.

Republication :

Authors may republish their research only with prior written approval, indicating its previous submission or publication in our journal.

Disclaimer :

Your use of our website and its content is at your own risk. We provide information in good faith but make no guarantees regarding its accuracy, validity, or completeness.

Limitation of Liability:

We are not liable for any incidental, special, or consequential damages arising from your use or inability to use our site.

Acknowledgment of Responsibility :

You are solely responsible for the accuracy and legality of materials you submit. You acknowledge that we are not liable for any misrepresentation or infringement of third-party rights.

Restrictions:

Users are prohibited from using the site illegally, engaging in disruptive behavior, spreading hate speech, or using the site for unauthorized advertising.

External Links:

Our site may contain links to external websites; we do not endorse their content or take responsibility for its accuracy or completeness.

Limited License:

Viewing, printing, or downloading content from our site is permitted for personal, non-commercial use only. Redistribution or other uses require our prior written consent.

Use of Information:

We may use information about your site usage and provided data in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

General Provisions:

If any part of this Agreement is deemed unenforceable, the remaining provisions will still apply. No failure to enforce any provision constitutes a waiver of that provision or our right to enforce it.

In case of any discrepancies between this Agreement and information on the website, this Agreement takes precedence.

 

2-Best Practices Charter

The journal adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practices, encompassing guidelines aimed at fostering integrity, transparency, and accountability throughout the publication process, including peer review and resolution of complaints.

These policies and principles are designed to uphold the highest standards of quality, integrity, and ethics in publishing, thereby earning trust and respect within the academic and research communities.

 Editors

Editors-in-chief hold full responsibility for all content published in the journal and undertake various tasks and actions:

- Meeting the needs of readers and authors while ensuring high journal quality.

- Establishing effective procedures to safeguard publication integrity.

- Supporting freedom of expression while upholding intellectual and ethical standards.

- Readily issuing corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies as needed.

Editors also adhere to these best practices:

- Soliciting feedback from authors, readers, reviewers, and editorial board members to enhance journal performance.

- Promoting scientific research and combating research misconduct and publication malpractice.

- Educating on publication ethics and assessing policy impacts on author and reviewer behavior, adjusting policies accordingly.

- Ensuring accuracy in press releases reflecting scientific paper content.

New editorial board members receive comprehensive guidance on roles and responsibilities, while current members are informed about new policies and field developments.

Relationship with Authors

Editorial decisions to accept or reject papers for publication are based on scientific paper significance, validity, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope. Changes to publication decisions are made only if fundamental issues arise in submitted manuscripts. New editors do not overturn previous editors' publication decisions without identifying fundamental problems.

Peer review process descriptions are published, and editors are prepared to justify significant deviations from stated processes. Journals provide mechanisms for authors to appeal editorial decisions and update author guidelines regularly.

Best practices include:

- Regularly reviewing and updating author guidelines, providing clear guidance and relevant links.

- Disclosing all contributors' relevant competing interests and publishing post-publication corrections for identified conflicts.

- Ensuring unbiased reviewer selection and honoring author requests to exclude specific reviewers when justified.

- Publishing protocols to address inappropriate behavior and making submission and acceptance deadlines public.

Relationship with Readers

Reader awareness of research funding sources and funders' roles is essential. Best practices include:

- Ensuring all research reports and reviews undergo qualified peer review, including statistical review, for accuracy and objectivity.

- Clearly identifying sections exempt from peer review to enhance publishing process transparency.

- Using editing processes that ensure accuracy, completeness, and clarity in research reports, adhering to appropriate guidelines and references.

- Considering transparency policies for maximum disclosure of non-research paper sources.

- Implementing authorship or contribution systems that promote good practices and prevent misconduct by clearly defining contributor roles.

Relationship with Reviewers

Editors provide reviewers with clear expectations, including handling submitted materials confidentially, regularly updating guidelines, and referencing them clearly. Reviewers disclose potential competing interests before accepting review requests.

Best practices involve:

- Encouraging reviewers to comment on ethical issues, potential research misconduct, and plagiarism.

- Assessing originality and identifying duplicate publications in submissions.

- Providing access to relevant publications for reviewer verification.

- Sending reviewers' comments in full to authors, excluding abusive or defamatory remarks.

- Acknowledging reviewers' contributions and monitoring performance for quality assurance.

- Maintaining and updating a reviewer database with diverse expertise and responsiveness to ethical concerns.

Relationship with the Publisher

Editors maintain editorial independence when making publication decisions based on content quality and relevance to journal scope, without publisher intervention. Editor-publisher relationships are governed by legal agreements ensuring compliance with COPE ethical publication principles.

Best practices include

- Regularly communicating constructively with the publisher.

- Ensuring fair, transparent, and timely peer review processes.

- Implementing systems to maintain article confidentiality during review.

Peer Review Process Management

Editors ensure fairness and transparency in peer review processes, maintaining confidentiality of submitted materials. Best practices include:

- Developing peer review methods tailored to the journal and research community needs.

- Providing training on peer review guidelines for all editorial process participants.

- Periodically reviewing peer review practices for updates and improvements.

- Establishing effective dispute resolution mechanisms and referring to COPE in ethical dilemmas.

Handling Potential Unethical Behavior

Editors address suspicions of unethical behavior or allegations seriously, reviewing published and unpublished papers as needed. Best practices include following COPE flowcharts for handling misconduct concerns, seeking clarifications from involved parties, and escalating investigations if necessary.

Quality Assurance and Personal Data Protection

Quality Assurance

Editors ensure published content quality through linguistic editing and data accuracy verification, maintaining ethical standards.

Personal Data Protection

Editors protect authors' privacy rights, handling submitted materials confidentially and obtaining consent for publishing personal data.

Promoting Ethical Research

Editors promote ethical research aligned with global standards, ensuring compliance with research ethics guidelines and institutional approvals. They update policies regularly, seek author clarifications on ethical issues, and verify research approvals when required.

Intellectual Property

Editors combat intellectual property violations through plagiarism detection systems, supporting affected authors against copyright infringements, and collaborating with publishers to address violations.

Ensuring Academic Record Integrity

Editors correct errors promptly, follow COPE guidelines for retracting documents, and safeguard published content through permanent online repositories.

Conflict of Interest

Editors manage scientific paper submissions impartially, disclosing and addressing conflicts of interest among editors, reviewers, and authors.

Encouraging Discussion

Editors foster open scientific dialogue by encouraging constructive criticism and responses from authors, including studies with negative results.

Handling Complaints

Editors respond promptly to complaints, ensuring a transparent mechanism for subsequent submissions and following COPE complaint handling procedures.

Authorship and Contribution

Editors uphold accountability by recognizing contributors' intellectual contributions, updating authorship guidelines, and verifying author consent for manuscript changes.

Data Sharing and Reproducibility

Editors promote data sharing to validate research findings, ensure data confidentiality, and facilitate access for future research.

Ethical Oversight Mechanisms Policy

Editors follow COPE guidelines for ethical oversight, investigate misconduct claims, and collaborate with relevant bodies for resolutions.

Post-Publication Discussion and Correction

Editors facilitate corrections and updates based on new data, ensuring accurate and complete scholarly records.

These best practices uphold the journal's commitment to excellence, transparency, and ethical conduct in scholarly publishing.

 

3-Journal Publishing Policy

The journal "AL-Lisaniyyat" welcomes submissions of scientific works addressing language and linguistic issues. Each submission undergoes a rigorous peer review process to assess its suitability for publication according to the journal's peer review and publication policies.

Publishing Requirements:

Submitted articles must meet the following criteria:

- The journal publishes research on various language and linguistic issues in Arabic, English, and French.

- Articles must be original and not previously published or derived from the author's prior works.

- Adherence to recognized scientific and academic standards, including thorough research, documentation, novelty, and proper use of sources and references.

- Formatting requirements: Font size 14 for main text (Sakala Majala), with 12-point margins, submitted in .docx format.

- Inclusion of figures, tables, and forms in photo format within the submission.

- Authors must make revisions as requested by reviewers and provide an amended version to the journal.

- Articles must include an abstract of no more than 300 words.

- In-text citations should follow the American Psychological Association (APA) style.

- A reference list formatted according to the journal template.

- Articles should range from 10 to 25 pages.

- Articles not complying with the journal template will be rejected prior to review.

General Publishing Policies:

- The journal reserves the right to reject any submission that does not adhere to its policies, requirements, and ethical standards.

- The journal may edit or modify language in accordance with publication conditions and rules.

- Editors may make adjustments to articles, including language corrections, technical edits, eliminating redundancy, and clarifying content.

Publication Services:

- The journal offers both electronic and print publication services.

- Contributing researchers may request a printed copy of the issue containing their work, subject to availability.

Publication Schedule:

- The journal publishes two regular issues annually: June and December.

- Special issues may be published as needed.

Ethical Guidelines:

- The journal maintains a strict separation between reviewers and authors.

- Timely and regular publication is a priority.

Copyright:

- Copyright for published works in "AL-Lisaniyyat" remains with the journal. Authors must obtain written permission from the editor to make any post-publication use of their work.

Certificates:

- Authors may request a certificate of publication if needed.

 

4-Policy on Correction and Withdrawal

The journal management may implement specific measures, in exceptional circumstances, to update the scientific content of the journal based on emerging data, which may necessitate corrections or in rare cases, the complete withdrawal of content.

Despite the rigorous efforts invested by researchers in their studies and the editorial board's meticulous handling of scientific works, peer review, and publication processes, there may arise situations where published or accepted research requires modification, deletion, or withdrawal. Such decisions must strictly adhere to guidelines aimed at preserving the journal's credibility and trustworthiness.

Reasons for Modification or Withdrawal:

Conflicts with Journal Policies or Ethics:

   - Content that conflicts with the journal's publishing policies or ethical standards may warrant modification or withdrawal.

Scientific Errors

   - Identification of significant scientific errors that could invalidate the conclusions of the article.

   The journal encourages authors and readers to report any errors found in published articles.

Procedures for Modification and Withdrawal

- If modifications are approved, they are promptly implemented and updated on the journal's website.

- The updated version replaces the outdated research, incorporating approved changes.

- In cases involving plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unethical behavior, the editorial board may decide to withdraw the article. This action is taken to uphold the journal's integrity, ensuring adherence to ethical and research standards.

- Upon withdrawal, an alternative version of the article is published, clearly indicating the reason for withdrawal and emphasizing adherence to ethical standards.

- The withdrawal and publication of the alternative version are conducted transparently and fairly. Disputes regarding withdrawal decisions are addressed through established criteria and procedures for complaint investigation and decision review.

- The primary objective remains the preservation of published research quality and the promotion of integrity and ethics in scientific publishing.

- The journal management adheres to guidelines provided by "COPE" (Committee on Publication Ethics) for handling article withdrawals, ensuring compliance with best publishing practices.

Additional Procedures

- The editorial board or editors are notified of the research requiring withdrawal.

- Authors are directly informed of the final decision regarding withdrawal, with relevant parties notified as necessary.

- A statement detailing the withdrawal process and its rationale is published on the journal's website in due course.

 

5-Peer-Review Policy

The scientific peer review system is fundamental to the publication process, ensuring the selection of high-quality research.

First Phase: Peer-Review

Peer review at "AL-Lisaniyyat" is conducted through the Algerian Scientific Journals Platform (ASJP) and follows these stages:

Evaluation:

- Upon receipt, the Editor-in-Chief initiates formal evaluation to ensure the article meets journal formatting and publication criteria.

- The authenticity of scientific content is verified, and excessive quotations that may lead to rejection are assessed.

- If compliant, the Editorial Secretary informs the author of preliminary acceptance; if not, the article is returned for adjustments.

Scientific Peer-Review:

- Following preliminary acceptance, the article undergoes double-blind review by two reviewers selected based on language proficiency, specialization, scientific standing, and institutional affiliation.

- Author information is anonymized to ensure impartiality.

- Reviewers provide detailed assessments covering linguistic and technical aspects, as well as the scholarly merit, validity of results, accuracy of data, and discussion of ideas.

- Reviewer feedback informs editorial decisions:

  - Acceptance without changes.

  - Acceptance with minor revisions.

  - Acceptance pending major revisions.

  - The journal reserves the right to halt or reject the review process at any time.

Editorial Decision:

- Based on reviewer reports, the Editorial Board decides:

  - Acceptance without modifications if both reviewers recommend.

  - Conditional acceptance requiring revisions based on reviewer feedback.

  - If conflicting recommendations occur, a third reviewer may be consulted.

  - Rejection with reasons provided to the author.

Article Handling:

- Articles are treated as confidential documents, with reviewers prohibited from disclosing or using research content without authorization.

- Reviewers must provide comprehensive, constructive feedback to help authors improve their work to meet publication standards.

Reviewer Responsibilities:

- Reviewers must:

  - Maintain impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest.

  - Apply critical thinking and adhere to scientific standards.

  - Provide timely, clear, and respectful feedback.

  - Decline reviews outside their expertise or if unable to meet deadlines.

Writing the Review Report:

- Reviews should focus on the research's quality, relevance, and originality.

- Feedback should guide authors in enhancing their research for publication.

Conclusion:

- Acceptance of a review entails a commitment to thorough evaluation, ensuring informed editorial decisions.

- Superficial or incomplete reviews are discouraged, as detailed assessment aids in maintaining publication quality.

Final Note:

- Accepted articles undergo final language and formatting checks prior to publication, focusing on enhancing clarity and adherence to publication standards.

 

6-Citations 

Citations are the threads that weave together our scientific and cultural knowledge. They serve as primary data that provide provenance and explain how we know what we know. Citations allow us to attribute and credit scientific contributions, and they enable the evaluation of research and its impacts. In essence, citations are the key vehicle for the discovery, dissemination, and evaluation of all scholarly knowledge.

We deposit reference lists from our journal articles to Crossref as part of our participation in Crossref’s Cited-by service. By opening our references and the other bibliographic metadata sent to Crossref, we enable reference distribution for all of the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) prefixes they manage. This step allows references within Crossref members’ articles to be distributed without restriction through all of Crossref's Metadata Delivery services, including the REST API and bulk metadata dumps.

 By using Crossref’s Cired-by service we  and support The Initiative of Open Access Citation  I4OC which  is part of a broader movement promoting the openness of bibliographic metadata.