Dear Bahram . Instead of asking for " I need a low impact factor journal ..." which make a negative impression to the reader,  you should ask (search) for Journals with IF that have rapid processing times. No one like to introduce it to you /encourage you to publish in a low standards journal).

Back to your question, to answer back for sharing your question with me, I must confess that my answer is "NO".. I dont know any journal about Language and Linguistics. I know some engineering journal.

Language Problems and Language Planning

Language Policy

Good luck, Eugene Loo

Google it out, dear Bahram!

Dear Bahram . Instead of asking for " I need a low impact factor journal ..." which make a negative impression to the reader,  you should ask (search) for Journals with IF that have rapid processing times. No one like to introduce it to you /encourage you to publish in a low standards journal).

Back to your question, to answer back for sharing your question with me, I must confess that my answer is "NO".. I dont know any journal about Language and Linguistics. I know some engineering journal.

Dear Bahram,

I advise you not to take a low impact factor journal. You should take a high impact factor journal. You can find them through many ways, such as Researchgate, Scoupus..etc..

First, i am going to appreciate your contribution, then with all your permission, I am going to change my question's formatting into :Could you please recommend a rapid processing journal with Impact Factor (IF) in Language and Linguistics or Social sciences.

The most rapid: Just publish it in ResearchGate and make publicity!

Why open access is better for scholarly societies

From a strategic point of view then, the best course of action for scholarly societies and for the faculty and researchers who support them would be to promote a shift to open access as widely and as quickly as possible.

When thinking about complements or substitutes, it’s just about the value to the consumer, not the cost.). The commercial publishers are selling a much better product, higher quality journals, and it’s therefore more expensive to develop them, and that’s what accounts for the price differential. So we can normalize for that by using a proxy for quality. One widely used proxy for quality, admittedly not a great one but at least widely touted by journals themselves through the ubiquitous “Impact Factor”, is the number of citations the journal receives.

The second basic truth is that the good being sold in the subscription market is access, and access is a monopolistic good. The monopoly is enabled by copyright, founded in the government’s ability as codified in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution to provide an exclusive right to the creator of a work for a limited period of time. Subscription publishers acquire exclusive rights to the articles they publish — typically by acquiring copyright, sometimes by acquiring an exclusive license, which is a distinction without a difference — and this allows publishers in theory and in many cases in practice to extract monopoly rents in selling access to the articles. We see evidence of this as well.

One is that the non-profits tend to be scholarly societies who may be motivated not by profit maximization but by service to the field. I think that’s true to a certain extent. But also the non-profits tend to be small publishers with few journals – maybe one, two, three, five, ten journals. Since bundle size governs market power, non-profits have less ability to grow margins. And scholarly societies rightly complain that they’re being squeezed

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2013/01/29/why-open-access-is-better-for-scholarly-societies/

Try this one

http://journalfinder.elsevier.com/#results