Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

IKAT: The Indonesian Journal of Southeast Asian Studies strives to provide new, rigorous and comprehensive understandings of Southeast Asia through inter-disciplinary perspectives. Its scope includes, but is not limited to, economic welfare, institutional knowledge production, history, political transformation, and the social development of information and communication technology in the region. Contributors may focus on an in-depth individual country analysis or a multi-country comparative case study. In line with CESASS's mission statement, contributors are encouraged to submit empirical, methodological, theoretical, or conceptual articles about Southeast Asia through the lense of social science.

 

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

IKAT: The Indonesian Journal of Southeast Asian Studies uses double-blind review. This means that throughout the review process both reviewers' and authors' identities are concealed from each other.

The peer review process at IKAT includes the following steps:

  1. Submission of Paper: The Author submits the article to the Journal via an online open journal system (OJS). 
  2. Editorial Office Assessment: The Journal checks the article’s composition and arrangement against the Journal's 'Author Guidelines' to ensure it includes the required sections and stylizations. 
  3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC): The EIC checks the article is appropriate for the Journal, as well if it is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the article may be rejected without further review. 
  4. Invitation to Reviewers: The handling Editor sends invitations to individuals they believe to be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances are obtained. 
  5. Review is Conducted: The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further revision. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the Journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered. 
  6. Journal Evaluates the Reviews: The handling Editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer, for further opinion, before making a decision.
  7. The Decision is Communicated: The Editor sends a decision email to the Author including any relevant reviewer comments. 
  8. Next Steps: If accepted, the article is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the Author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling Editor. 
  9. Formatting and Publication: Once the article is accepted, it is sent to production for proofreading and formatting. Once these two final processes are finished, the article will be ready to publish in the latest issue of IKAT.

 

Publication Frequency

Biannually in January and July.

 

Open Access Policy

This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or their institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open accsess.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Publication Ethics

Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting Standards: 
    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 behaviour and are unacceptable.
  2. Data Access and Retention: 
    Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases) if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
  3. 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.
  4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication: 
    An author should not, in general, publish articles describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same article to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
  5. Acknowledgement 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.
  6. 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 there are others who 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 on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
  7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 
    All authors should disclose in their article any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their article. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
  8. Fundamental errors in published works: 
    When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
  9. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: 
    If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the article.

Duties of Editors

  1. Fair Play: 
    An editor at any time must evaluate articles for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
  2. Confidentiality: 
    The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted article to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
  3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 
    Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted article must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
  4. Publication Decisions
    The editoral board of the journal are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should 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 policies of the journal's editorial board 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 this decision.
  5. Review of Articles: 
    Editor must ensure that each article is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. Editors should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

Duties of Reviewers

  1. 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.
  2. Promptness: 
    Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a article or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process
  3. Standards of Objectivity: 
    Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  4. Confidentiality: 
    Any articles 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.
  5. 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 articles in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
  6. Acknowledgement of Sources: 
    Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the article under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

 

Plagiarism Screening

Articles submitted to IKAT are screened for plagiarism using a plagiarism checker. In accordance with our publication ethics, articles found to have an unacceptable level of similarity to a previously published article are immediately rejected.