Language Technology

This paper examines the criteria used to assess candidate neoterms and determine their treatment in terminology resources, and it develops methodological guidelines for their systematic management. The review is based on a qualitative comparison of three complementary sources of evidence: (1) a focused secondary analysis of the terminology-related results from the ENEOLI survey on lexical innovation research, (2) relevant ISO/TC 37 standards, and (3) selected institutional and national terminology-planning materials from Europe, considered alongside the relevant terminological literature. The findings reveal substantial convergence across professional practice, standardization frameworks, and terminology-planning initiatives. Candidate neoterms are evaluated through a combination of conceptual, linguistic, pragmatic, multilingual, and institutional criteria, including conceptual relevance, communicative necessity, usage evidence, terminological adequacy, harmonization, and expert validation. The study shows that neoterms may occupy different statuses, ranging from provisional documentation to recommendation, preference, standardization, or rejection, depending on their degree of stabilization and endorsement. On this basis, the paper proposes an iterative workflow that includes detection, description, terminological evaluation, validation, harmonization, status assignment, dissemination, monitoring, and revision. The proposed framework provides a systematic methodological model for managing terminological neology in specialized communication and terminology resources.