About the Journal

Focus and Scope

Sendebar is an annual international research journal which publishes works in the fields of translation and interpreting. It was founded in 1990 by Luis Márquez Villegas and is based at the Faculty of Translation and Interpreting of the University of Granada (C/ Puentezuelas, 55 - E 18071 Granada).

Its main goal is to present original scientific works on Translation and Interpreting in all their aspects (theory, practice, methodology, didactics, history and so on). Its readers are scholars and researchers in the fields of Translation and Interpreting, as well as related disciplines.

PUBLICATION LANGUAGES

English and Spanish. The publication of original works written in Portuguese, French or Italian will be considered if authorised by the Editorial Board.

Open Access Policy

Operating on the principle that free availability to research promotes a greater exchange of global knowledge, this journal provides immediate access to its contents.

Types of contributions and length

Sendebar publishes original papers, interviews, bibliography articles and book reviews. The length of contributions depends on the type of publication: 6,000-10,000 words for papers, a maximum of 4,000 words for interviews, a maximum of 3,000 words for bibliography articles and a maximum of 1,500 words for reviews.

Original papers include the results of original research and seek to follow the following structure: introduction, methodology, results and conclusion.

Publication Process

SUBMISSION OF WORKS AND CORRESPONDENCE. FILE FORMAT

In order to ensure anonymity, works and correspondence shall be submitted through Sendebar’s virtual platform, following the instructions for submission of works. Files shall not contain any reference to the author(s) neither in the document properties, nor in the article or reference section. Please check the Template for articles.

If the work contains images, these shall be submitted as independent TIFF or JPEG files with the best possible resolution. Apart from submitting the images as independent files, images shall be included in the body of the text wherever needed and they shall be preceded by the corresponding captions.

SELECTION AND EVALUATION OF ORIGINALS

Works must be original and unpublished, and not be in the process of being published in other journals. All original papers received shall be evaluated anonymously by at least two members of the Advisory Board of Sendebar, who are prestigious scholars in the field.

Sendebar makes use of a double blind review process carried out by external referees, that is, the Advisory Board’s reviewers are unaware of the identity of the person evaluated, and, in turn, the author is unaware of the identity of the person evaluating them.

The journal’s Editorial Board will acknowledge receipt of contributions. Following the reports drawn up by the scientific reviewers, the Board will decide if papers are accepted for publication, rejected or accepted provided that the required changes are made. Authors shall be informed of those decisions as well as of evaluations and possible required changes for publication.

CORRECTIONS AND PROOFS

It is essential that the text sent to Sendebar corresponds to the definitive version and complies with the submission guidelines set out in this document. The accepted text shall not be published until the author has made all the changes needed in order to comply with the style sheet.

Authors shall not make changes to the originals once they have been accepted for publication. Authors shall receive a page proof [U2] solely for the purposes of errata correction. The corrected proof shall be returned to the editorial office of Sendebar as soon as possible. If the author does not reply within the period specified by the Editorial Board, it shall be understood that the author is in agreement with the version published by Sendebar.

SUBMISSION DEADLINE

For the next issue, by 15 January.

EDITORIAL POLICY

Sendebar is not responsible for the contents and opinions expressed by authors.

The journal encourages the use of inclusive language.

COPYRIGHT

It is understood that the authors whose originals are published waive their copyright to the benefit of Editorial Universidad de Granada.

Guide for reviewers

The main aim of this guide is to ensure that the entire peer-review process carried out at Sendebar is characterised by:

  • Guaranteeing an independent review which conveys constructive appraisals to authors in a respectful manner.
  • Ensuring that the manuscripts put forward a full, objective and balanced view of their subject matter.
  • Checking that manuscripts contain up-to-date information, scientifically available and verifiable.
  • Checking that the conclusions or arguments resulting from the research are intelligible and relevant to the discipline.

Instructions regarding confidentiality and ethical conduct

Confidentiality

All the manuscripts are privileged information. Therefore, reviewers are asked to abstain from showing them to or discussing them with third parties unless it is to seek advice on a specific aspect.

Ethical conduct

Sendebar expects the following from the reviewers involved in the editorial process:

  • If a reviewer considers that there is someone else better able to assess the relevance of the material, the reviewer must notify the editorial team.
  • If the reviewer thinks that he or she will have difficulties carrying out an objective assessment of the material, the reviewer is requested to notify the editorial team immediately.
  • If there is or there has been a relationship between the reviewer and any institution or person related to the manuscript which could give rise to a conflict of interest, the reviewer must reflect that fact in the Review Form.

Deadlines for review

Having accepted the engagement to assess a manuscript, the reviewer must issue his or her report in the period of three weeks.

Structure and style of the review reports

Reviewers shall issue their reports by completing the Review Form and in any event having regard to the following guidelines:

  • The peer-review process has two aims: to advise the editorial team about the suitability of publishing the manuscript and to communicate all those improvements that could be made to the work.
  • Thus the reviewer must be aware that his or her job is to give expert advice about the work done by another colleague, not to judge or decide. Therefore the tone of the reports shall always be most respectful of people and institutions.
  • All criticisms and appraisals shall be objective, and not mere differences of opinion or personal evaluations without argumentation.
  • Criticisms must always be directed at the argumentation or consistency of the data presented, and never at the authors.

Information about aspects to evaluate

General and specific aspects of the manuscript shall be evaluated with the objective of ascertaining if the research that it describes:

  1. Involves an advance in knowledge and is relevant to the discipline.
  2. Has the level of argumentation, wording and structure demanded of scientific papers.
  3. Is of interest to the journal’s target audience.

EVALUATION OF GENERAL ASPECTS

General comments shall be justified by specific evidence taken from the manuscript or in other published works, and they must consider:

  • The degree of originality of the work.
  • The importance the manuscript has for the advancement of the discipline and, if applicable, its social, cultural or economic implications.

EVALUATION OF SPECIFIC ASPECTS

An evaluation shall be made of the specific aspects that are grouped together under the following headings:

Presentation and Wording

The clarity and precision of the writing in the manuscript shall be assessed, both in the body of the text and in the headings, abstracts and key words. Further, it is of utmost importance that those items unequivocally reflect the principal theme of the research.

Length and Structure

Under this heading, it shall be evaluated whether the text is structured into logical and clearly-defined sections which convey the information efficiently; and, further, whether any of those sections need to be expanded, reduced or removed.

Methodology and Reproducibility

Under this heading, it shall be evaluated whether the methods and criteria for the research have been well chosen, and if the research process is described with the necessary clarity so that the work can be repeated by another qualified researcher.

Findings and Conclusions

It is evaluated whether both the arguments and most important findings are clearly identified in the manuscript, and if the conclusions are derived from an analysis of them.

Citations and References

Under this heading, it is evaluated whether all the citations and references used in the text are relevant and up to date.

Coincidences

Reviewers shall state if they know of the existence of other works, published or to be published, the content of which are identical or very similar to the manuscripts they evaluate.