|Focus & Scope|
|Abstracting & Indexing|
|Open Access Policy|
JOETAL focuses on the publication of articles that transcend disciplines, and which, regardless of subject, appeal to a diverse readership and advance the study of humanities, particularly in Indonesia. This articles that contribute to the strengthening of critical approaches, increasing the quality of critique, or encouragement of innovative methodologies.
Only original research articles and book reviews are accepted.
|Open Submissions||Indexed||Peer Reviewed|
JOETAL aims to publish academic articles that uncover new depths in the study of humanities. These articles should be able to contribute to and advance our current understanding of culture, language, and literature, with a sound scientific basis. To ensure this, we employ a double-blind review, which means that both the reviewers' and authors' identities are concealed from each other throughtout the review process.
More specifically, our editorial process is as follows:
This journal uses Open Journal Systems 220.127.116.11, which is open source journal management and publishing software developed, supported, and freely distributed by the Public Knowledge Project under the GNU General Public License.
JOETAL is published triannually, in March, July, and November.
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
It is strictly against the ethics of academic article publication for duplication of publication. It is mandatory that contributors (authors) provide a written declaration that a manuscript submitted to JOETAL has not been previously published and is not being considered for other publications. In addition, we have a commitment to ensure that all submissions are original. Therefore, the editorial office of our journal is responsible to cross-check to ensure that submitted manuscripts have not been published prior to their submission to JOETAL.
There is a limit to the extent that JOETAL can examine submitted works. As such, we call upon external reviewers and the academic community to report any misconduct to our help desk officer via firstname.lastname@example.org for prompt action to be taken.
JOATEAL may initiate a retraction if a work is proven to be fraudulent, or an expression of concern if our editors have well-founded suspicion of misconduct. In addition, JOETAL can facilitate a replacement. In this case, the author(s)'s of the original article may wish to retract the flawed original article and replace it with a revised version.
Neither peer-reviewer' comments nor correspondence should contain personal attacks on authors. Editors and peer-reviewers should only criticize the work, not the researcher and should edit (or reject) letters containing personal or offensive statements.
Authors of JOETAL must adhere to the following guidelines:
Reviewers of JOETAL must adhere to the following guidelines:
Editors of JOETAL must adhere to the following guidelines:
Manuscripts submitted to JOETAL are screened for plagiarism using a Smallsaetool. In accordance with our publication ethics, manuscripts found to have an unacceptable level of similarity to a previously published article are immediately rejected.
All papers submitted to JOETAL undergo a rigorous peer review to ensure that they not only fit into the journal's scope but are of sufficient academic quality and novelty to appeal to our readers. As a reviewer, you are required to uphold this standard.
These guidelines will help you understand your responsibilities as a reviewer, as well as your ethical obligations to both the journal and the authors. You will also be introduced to what you should be looking for in a manuscript so that your review will be consistent with others requested by the journal. This is particularly important as all articles submitted to JOETAL should be evaluated on a level playing field.
Your responsibilities as a reviewer
As a reviewer, you are responsible for reading the manuscript and evaluating its suitability for publication in JOETAL. You are expected to provide constructive, impartial, unambiguous, and honest feedback to the authors, with the purpose of encouraging them to improve their manuscript to the point that it can be published in JOETAL.
Your role in JOETAL’s commitment to author development
We believe that publication is not an endpoint, but rather—through its function as a facilitator of scientific debate—one step of many in an author’s evolution. Any author, but especially one in the early stages of their career, should come out of the review process has improved as a writer and researcher. For this reason, JOETAL urges reviewers to not only do their part in helping a manuscript reach its potential but to draw from their wealth of experience to help up-and-coming authors find their true voice. By providing thoughtful, constructive criticism that authors can use to shape their subsequent writing, you aid us in paying the knowledge forward.
A further contribution you make is in establishing a standard of good reviewing practices, showing through example how a peer review is to be conducted.
Conversely, we must also emphasize that any form of criticism aimed at demoralizing an author is unacceptable, regardless of a manuscript’s academic merit (or lack thereof). Reviewer comments that in any way intimidate, denigrate, or discourage an author from pursuing the publication of their present or any future article are not tolerated, and any reviewer who exhibits this detrimental behavior will be permanently barred from contributing further to JOETAL.
JOETAL relies on the impartiality and discretion of its reviewers, and as one, you have entrusted with confidential material meant solely for critical evaluation. Without exception, you must treat all documents and correspondence related to the review with care. You should:
The Review Process
Things to consider before agreeing to review a manuscript
Before you agree to review a manuscript, you should be certain that you have the necessary expertise and time to provide a critical evaluation of the article. Ask yourself whether:
Conducting the Review (JOETAL’s review procedure)
JOETAL uses an online submission and peer review system. When a reviewer is requested to review a paper submitted to JOETAL, they will have a journal account created for them, through which they will be able to read the abstract and decide on whether to agree to review it.
If you have been requested to review a paper, simply log into your reviewer account, read the provided abstract, and indicate whether you agree to review it. If you decline to review the manuscript, please include the reason why, and if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer from a similar field.
To ensure the integrity of the peer-review process, all further correspondence will be through this system, with the reviewer being given access to the full manuscript and provided with a review page to fill out and submit. If you wish, you can also provide comments directly on the manuscript file, but be sure that all comments are made anonymously and focus on the content of the article, not its layout or formatting.
Your review should look at both the overall quality of the manuscript and the accuracy and precision of its details, with the former informed by the latter. Assess the following aspects:
Publication ethics is not limited to these four items (you can read JOETAL’s full publication ethics statement here). If you believe the author(s) have attempted to mislead readers, infringed upon a copyright or patent, or might jeopardize the integrity of the journal in any other way, please contact the section editor.
Submitting the review
The JOETAL review form
Once you have gathered enough information to make a decision on the manuscript, log into your JOETAL account to complete the review. At the minimum, you will be required to grade the manuscript based on the aforementioned criteria, as well as to summarize your major findings and give your overall impression of the article. Although it is only optional, we highly encourage you to also take the opportunity to comment on the manuscript in more detail, and provide specific suggestions that might improve any aspect of it.
If you have made specific comments in the manuscript file, remember to anonymize them to prevent the authors from being able to identify you.
Making good comments
It's important to ensure that all comments are constructive and intended to better the quality of the manuscript (or otherwise help the authors understand where they went wrong). Please reconsider making comments that fall out of this purview.
Follow good commenting practices. For example:
Your final task as a reviewer will be to recommend that the manuscript is either; a) accepted as is, b) accepted with minor revisions, c) accepted with major revisions, or d) rejected. If the manuscript is rejected, you should explain your reasons why.
Regardless of what you recommend, your decision should be supported by the facts of the evaluation and backed with constructive criticism. As one of at least two reviewers, your recommendation may differ from that of your colleagues. Therefore, ensuring that you conduct a good critical review is important, as it enables JOETAL’s editorial board to make an informed final decision on the manuscript. Also note that the final decision on the manuscript is made by the editorial board, taking into account ever reviewer’s recommendations, and your recommendation might not be reflected in this decision.
© 2020 MT Publishing, Yogyakarta. All rights reserved.
Journal of English Language Teaching, Applied Linguistics and Literature
Jl. Karang Ploso No. 8C Rt/Rw 01/11, Kel. Condong Catur,Kec. Depok, Kab. Sleman,
Ciptaan disebarluaskan di bawah Lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi 4.0 Internasional.