1. General guidelines for articles in both regular and open issues

1.1. Article proposals must be submitted in a Microsoft Word file through the Open Journal System (OJS) at https://ricl.aelinco.es/index.php/ricl/about/submissions

1.2. Article proposals must be written in proper academic English.

1.3. Each article must be supplied with an abstract (between 100-200 words in length). Below the abstract there should be a list of up to six keywords.

1.4. Proposals will be automatically identified by means of the authors’ registration in the system (in the Metadata section; step 3 of the submission). Thus, authors are asked not to write their names, affiliation or any other detail in the whole of the text that might reveal their identity in the article. Failure to comply with this requirement means that the paper will be immediately returned to the author(s).

1.5. Authors must read and acknowledge the Submission Preparation Checklist before submitting their proposals.

1.6. Authors give the copyright to the publisher upon acceptance, which will have the permanent right to electronically distribute their articles, but will retain copyright.

1.7. The articles, whether empirical, theoretical or practical-critical, should address an important problem or issue in the field of Corpus Linguistics. The articles should be grounded in appropriate theory/existing knowledge and provide evidence of a competent and critical review of the relevant literature. Authors are strongly recommended to use sections irrespective of the type of article submitted.

1.8. Authors are expected to take responsibility for obtaining permission to reproduce any materials from other publishers and to properly acknowledge other authors' works.

1.9. Authors must explicitly state that the opinions expressed in their articles do not necessarily coincide with those of the Editors, who will not accept liability for the contents included in the articles by ticking the corresponding box in the Submission Preparation Checklist.

1.10. Authors are responsible for submitting their articles following the General and Style Guidelines of RiCL. Failure to comply with these guidelines will result in immediate rejection of the article.

2. Stylistic, structural and formatting guidelines

2.1. Length

• Papers reporting on research based on or derived from corpora should between 6,000 and 10,000 words, including title, abstract, references, notes, appendices, tables and figures.
• Research papers reporting on corpus construction, annotation, the development and application of corpus tools, software, etc. should have between 3,000 and 5,000 words, including title, abstract, references, notes, appendices, tables and figures.
• Book reviews do not require an abstract and should have between 1,500 and 3,000 words.
• Review articles should have between 3,000 and 6,000 words.

NOTE: This is the recommended length for all kinds of submissions. If a longer manuscript is submitted for some particular reason, authors should include a note making a case for an exception to this limit as a cover letter which must be uploaded as 'Other' to the system along with the manuscript.

2.2. Spelling and language

• Manuscripts should be written in proper academic English. Every effort should be made by non-native speakers of English to have their final draft checked by a colleague who is a native speaker of English. Either British English or US English conventions for spelling and expression should be followed consistently.
• Racist, sexist, homophobic, or other derogatory language will not be tolerated.
• Idiomatic use of language should be avoided.

2.3. Spacing, fonts and indentation

1.5pt line space and 6pt above and 6pt below for paragraphs. Except for the first paragraph of a new section or subsection, the first line of every new paragraph is indented (1 cm). Please use Times New Roman size 12pt font throughout the manuscript. Abstract, keywords and captions should be in Times New Roman 10pt.

2.4. Abstract and keywords

The first page of each article must include a 100-200 word summary or abstract. Just after the abstract append a list of up to six keywords, separated by semi-colons, so that your contribution can be accurately classified by international reference indexes.

2.5. Section headings

Section and subsection headings should be typed on separate lines, numbered and punctuated as in the following examples:

1. Introduction [small caps, centred]

1.1. Methodological considerations [italics, justified]

1.1.1. A summary of the theoretical framework [normal font type, justified]

2.6. Examples

Examples are single-spaced and numbered as follows:

                 (1)            xxxxx

                 (1a)          xxxxx

2.7. Notes

Notes should be in the form of footnotes (rather than endnotes). Notes should be avoided and limited to authorial commentary that cannot be easily accommodated in the body of the text.

2.8. Tables and figures

Tables and figures, if any, have to be numbered consecutively and referred to by their numbers within the text (e.g., as we see in example/Table 1/Figure 1). Tables and figures are centred. The title of the table/figure must appear below, centred in Times New Roman 10pt.

2.9. Quotation marks

Quotations of under 25 words should be included in double quotation marks in the running text. All punctuation marks should precede closing quotation marks as follows:

            Smith (2018: 20) considers that collocation and valency are “near neighbours in the lexis-grammar continuum.” 

Longer quotations should be set off, indented (0.5 cm) and never enclosed in quotation marks. An 11pt font should be used.

Single quotation marks are restricted to names of concepts, as in the following example:

          the term ‘Pragmatic Marker’, which is one of the most general and widely accepted terms,...

2.10. Other typographical conventions.

• Square brackets ([ ]) are used for an unavoidable parenthesis within a parenthesis, to enclose interpolations or comments in a quotation or incomplete data and to enclose phonetic transcription.
• The use of italics is restricted to foreign words or abbreviations, such as et al., sqq., etc.

2.11. In-text references

In-text references must be inserted as follows (please note the use of long en-dash to mark page ranges and the use of "and" rather than ampersand "&" for multiple authors):

                 see Smith and Wilson (1993: 481–483)

                 ... and elsewhere (see Smith 1993: 481–483)

If several references are cited within brackets, they must be arranged chronologically and separated by semi-colons, as follows:

                 (Goldberg 1980; Erman 1987, 2001; Fox Tree and Schrock 2002; Brinton 2007; Beeching 2016)

2.12. List of References

The list of references follows the style below.

Books

Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fromkin, Victoria A. 1973. Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Östman, Jan-Ola. 1981. You Know: A Discourse-Functional Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Journals

Casali, Roderic F. 1998. Predicting ATR activity. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 34/1: 55–68.

Johnson, Kyle, Mark Baker and Ian Roberts. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219–251.

On-line resources

Franks, Steven. 2005. Bulgarian clitics are positioned in the syntax. http://www.cogs.indiana.edu/people/homepages/franks/Bg_clitics_remark_dense.pdf (17 May, 2006.)

Collective volumes

Jucker, Andreas H. and Yael Ziv eds. 1998. Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Webelhuth, Gert ed. 1995. Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program: Principles and Parameters in Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Chapters in collective volumes

Jucker, Andreas H. and Sara Smith. 1998. And people just you know like ‘wow’: Discourse markers as negotiating strategies. In Andreas H. Jucker and Yael Ziv eds. Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 171–201.

McCarthy, John J. and Alan S. Prince. 1999. Prosodic morphology. In John A. Goldsmith ed. Phonological Theory: The Essential Readings. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 238–288.

Dictionaries and primary resources

Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn. 1989. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dissertations

Stewart, Thomas W. Jr. 2000. Mutation as Morphology: Bases, Stems, and Shapes in Scottish Gaelic. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University dissertation.