T O O L S
ISSN & E-ISSN
ISSN and E-ISSN
Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication
The publication of an article in Sphota: Jurnal Linguistik dan Sastra is an essential building block in developing a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a clear reflection of the quality of the authors' work and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles help and embody scientific methods. It is, therefore, essential to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the editor, the reviewer, the publisher, and the society. The publisher of Sphota: Jurnal Linguistik dan Sastra is obliged to guard all stages of publishing seriously and recognizes its ethical standards and other responsibilities. Faculty of Foreign Languages, Unmas is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint, or additional commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
The editor of the Sphota: Jurnal Linguistik dan Sastra is responsible for deciding the best and eligible articles to be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the journal's editorial board's policies and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making their decisions.
An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's research without the author's express written consent.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. The relevant citation should accompany any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Duties of Authors
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication
In general, an author should publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper. All co-authors have seen and approved the paper's final version and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest in their manuscript that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental Errors in Published Works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Allegations of Research Misconduct
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, reviewing research, and writing an article by authors, or reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved with research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, Editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.
In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them to resolve the complaint and address the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the Editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper contains such misconduct, a retraction can be published and linked to the original article.
The first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and assessing whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest.
Suppose scientific misconduct or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility. In that case, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who requested to provide a detailed response on behalf of all of the co-authors. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article are sufficient.
Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have an essential obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct and taking necessary actions based on evaluating these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, Sphota: Jurnal Linguistik dan Sastra will continue to fulfill its responsibilities ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.
The papers published in Sphota: Jurnal Linguistik dan Sastra considered retracting in the publication if:
`1. They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error),
2. the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication)
3. it constitutes plagiarism
4. it reports unethical research
The retraction mechanism follows the Retraction Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which can be accessed at https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf.
Platform and workflow by OJS/PKP
©2020 Sphota: Jurnal Linguistik dan Sastra (p-ISSN: 2085-8388 , e-ISSN: 2580-7358 )
Published by Fakultas Bahasa Asing (FBA) Universitas Mahasaraswati Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia
Sphota: Jurnal Linguistik dan Sastra is Indexed by: