Statutes of Keltische Forschungen
§1 The name of the journal is Keltische Forschungen (KF).
§2 The subject matter of the journal is Celtic studies as a cultural discipline in the broadest possible sense; i.e., it encompasses all research concerned with forms of cultural expression that relate directly or indirectly to Celtic societies or individuals. These include the traditional subjects of archaeology, ethnology, history, art history, literature, language and religion, as well as the reception of Celtic cultures from ancient to modern times, research into the discipline of Celtic studies and its history, and theoretical approaches to the field.
§3 The publication of KF is commissioned by the proprietor, Brennos - Verein für Keltologie (Brennos - Austrian Society for Celtic Studies; based in Vienna).
(1) The address of the society and of the editorial office of KF is:
(2) The website of KF is:
§4 KF appears regularly in a single volume.
§5 Submissions to KF may be in English and German. For contributions in other European languages the approval of the editorial board is required.
§6 Every submission must be accompanied by an abstract in English and, if possible, German.
B. The Boards, the team and their Functions
§7 The editorial board of KF consists of five members of whom one is the general editor. Members with a professional affiliation outside of Austria comprise the majority of the editorial board. On recommendation of its executive board, the general assembly of Brennos - Austrian Society for Celtic Studies can approve and implement changes in the composition of KF's editorial board.
§8 The editorial board has the following duties:
(1) It conducts initial checks of unsolicited submissions to ensure that they are formally correct (see §12). This task usually falls to that member of the board whose area of expertise is closest to the subject matter of the submission.
(2) It sends submissions that have been judged to be formally correct to two external peer reviewers. The task of choosing the reviewers usually falls to that member of the board whose area of expertise is closest to the subject matter of the submission.
(3) After the peer review process has been completed (see §§13-14), it decides by a simple majority about which submissions will be accepted for publication.
(4) It must ensure that the members of the peer review panel are well-qualified and that the panel includes scholars from diverse fields of expertise. It can change the composition of the peer review panel with a two-thirds majority.
§9 The general editor has the following duties:
(1) (S)he is the principal public representative of the journal.
(2) (S)he coordinates the editorial work on the journal.
(3) (S)he remains in regular contact with the publisher.
(4) (S)he carries out correspondence with the authors of the journal.
(5) It is the particular task of the general editor to copyedit submissions that have been judged ready for publication according to the formal guidelines of KF, i.e. according to the guidelines for layout, the style sheet for bibliographical references, and the list of abbreviations. In this task, (s)he can be supported by editorial assistants.
(6) The general editor must ensure that every article is accompanied by a German and English abstract.
§10 The peer review panel is that pool of experts from which peer reviewers for submissions are preferably chosen. Its composition reflects the diverse subject matters of the journal. Members with a professional affiliation outside of Austria comprise the majority of the peer review panel.
§11 The editorial team supports the general editor and the editorial board in their duties and the day-to-day management of the journal. The editorial team is made up of members of the Brennos executive board.
C. The Peer Review Process
§12 Unsolicited submissions that do not meet the basic standards of scholarly work (see §8(1)) may be rejected without specifying further reason. All other submissions must be reviewed by at least two peer reviewers who remain anonymous to the authors. The peer reviewers are preferably chosen from among the peer review panel, and they must possess expertise in the field to be assessed. All reviews must be archived.
(1) If it proves difficult to find appropriate reviewers from among the peer review panel, experts from outside the peer review panel may be asked to review submissions.
(2) In special cases, the editors may solicit one or more additional reviews after receiving the initial assessment of the peer reviewers.
§13 It is preferable for reviewers to use a standardised review form. In the reviews, the following points must be addressed:
(1) originality and clarity of the research question(s);
(2) originality of the results;
(3) suitability of the methods;
(4) correctness of the methods;
(5) compliance with the standards of scholarly work.
(6) Furthermore, language, style, and other formal aspects may be assessed in certain cases.
(7) Where appropriate, the reviewers are advised to make suggestions for improvement.
§14 In the final assessment, every reviewer is requested to assess the submission by assigning it to one of the following three categories:
3. to be rejected
§15 The remainder of the editorial process is based on the decisions of the reviewers, in particular on the assessments (see §14).
(1) In the case of submissions that have been rated 'acceptable', the editors reserve the right to request that the authors make substantial changes in their contributions.
(2) The editors reserve the right to reject submissions for reasons other than those addressed in the reviews.