Since all submissions to PLSA are based on presentations given at the LSA Annual Meeting, the identity of the author(s) will be publicly available at the time of submission to PLSA. PLSA operates on a single-anonymous peer review policy, with the identity of the author(s) known to reviewers, but the identity of reviewers not known by the authors.

 Reviewing for PLSA is a two-stage process:

• Abstract review. The initial review is based on the abstracts of poster and/or oral presentations that are submitted for presentation at an LSA Annual Meeting. All abstracts are subject to rigorous, double-anonymous review (by at least 2 reviewers) under the auspices of the LSA Program Committee.
• Proceeding Paper review. Submissions to PLSA are based on presentations delivered at the LSA Annual Meeting, and must incorporate feedback received during the Annual Meeting. All PLSA submissions then go through a second round of review. These reviews will be conducted by members of the PLSA Editorial Board, overseen by the Editor/ Co-Editors of PLSA. Each submission will be reviewed by at least one member of the PLSA Editorial Board. The PLSA Editors/Co-Editors can also, as needed, recruit additional outside reviewers for specific submissions (for example, when evaluating a submission requires specific technical skills or knowledge).

Questions considered during the review of Proceeding Papers

During the review of the Proceeding Paper, the three questions below will be considered by the assigned reviewers. Only submissions for which all three questions are answered in the affirmative will be accepted for publication in PLSA. In considering these questions, reviewers will be asked to respond in the positive only if the submission already meets the expectations and will require no more than minimal revision. 

For any submission that will require substantive or major revisions, the relevant question or questions below should be answered in the negative. This therefore means that only submissions that require at most minor, non-substantive revision will be accepted for publication.

1. Is the submission substantively related to the abstract that was accepted for presentation at the Annual Meeting?
2. Does the research follow standard practices relevant to the area of research?
3. Is the research free from any substantive flaws sufficient to preclude publication?

The member(s) of the PLSA Editorial Board that review a particular submission will communicate to the Editor/Co-Editors their answers to the three questions above. It is not expected that these reviewers prepare a lengthy review report, as is typical for publication in other LSA journals.

For submissions that are recommended to be rejected (i.e., for which at least one of the questions above receives a negative answer), the reviewer will be expected to supply a short motivation for the negative answer (a few brief paragraphs per question will suffice). These responses should be written in a manner appropriate for sharing with the author, and should be framed as constructive feedback. A space will be provided for the reviewer, if they wish, to add additional separate comments to the Editor/Co-Editors that will not be shared with the author.

For submissions that are recommended for publication (i.e., for which all three of the questions above receive a positive answer) the reviewer may request minor changes to be made.

Editorial decision

The final decision to accept a PLSA submission for publication (or not) rests exclusively with the PLSA Editor/Co-Editors, based on their own independent judgment as informed by the recommendations of the members of the PLSA Editorial Board.

Although the Editor/Co-Editors report to the LSA Executive Committee, the Executive Committee will play no role in editorial decisions.

Appeals

To appeal an editorial decision, please contact the PLSA Editors (proceedings@lsadc.org) and specify the reason for your appeal. Your appeal will be reviewed by at least one Co-Editor who did not review the manuscript originally. The final decision regarding your appeal will rest with the journal’s Editors.