Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Humaniora 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.

Topics include:

  • Culture (History, Anthropology, Tourism, Media Studies)
  • Language (Sociolinguistics, Pragmatics, Applied Linguistics, Comparative Linguistics)
  • Literature (Comparative Literature, Indonesia Literature)

Only original research articles and book reviews are accepted.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Humaniora 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:

  1. Initial screening. All submissions are initially screened by the Editor-in-Chief for their conformity to Humaniora's scope and basic submission requirements, and checked for plagiarism. Manuscripts that fail to abide by our ethical standards are immediately rejected, as are manuscripts that do not fit within the journal's scope.
  2. Reviewer assignment. Manuscripts that pass initial screening are then handed over to a section editor, who will select at least two relevant reviewers and initiate the peer review process.
  3. Peer review. During this stage, a reviewer will asess the content of the manuscript and provide their recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.
  4. First decision. Once both (or more) reviewers have submitted their recommendations, the manuscript is either rejected, asked for revisions (minor or major), or accepted as is. If it is accepted, the manuscript is returned to the submitting author for proofreading. The final decision to accept the manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the recommendation of the section editor and following approval by the editorial board.
  5. Revision. A manuscript that requires revisions is returned to the submitting author, who will have up to four weeks to revise the manuscript. Once the revision is submitted, it is once again assessed by the section editor to determine whether the changes are adequate and appropriate, as well as whether the author(s) sufficiently responded to the reviewers' comments and suggestions. If the revisions are deemed to be inadequate, this step is repeated (the manuscript is returned to the submitting author once more for further revision).
  6. Final decision. Finally, the revised manuscript is either accepted or rejected, depending on whether the section editor has found the manuscript to have been improved to a level worthy of publication. If the author(s) are unable to make the required changes or have done so to a degree below Humaniora’s standards, the manuscript is rejected.
  7. Language editing. Once the manuscript is accepted, it is returned to the submitting author for final editing of its language and content; these are changes that improve the readability of the article without changing the substance of the content. Humaniora requires authors to return the manuscript with proof that changes have been made, which the editorial board will review before ultimately greenlighting the manuscript for publication.
  8. Typesetting. Once greenlit, the manuscript is handed over to the journal’s typesetter. The final version of the article, as it will appear in Humaniora, is returned to the submitting author for proofreading and final approval.
  9. Publication. Congratulations! The published article will appear in the latest issue of Humaniora.

 

Publication Frequency

Humaniora is published triannually, in February, June, and October.

 

Open Access Policy

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.

 

Publication Ethics

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 Humaniora 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 Humaniora.

There is a limit to the extent that Humaniora 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 humaniora@ugm.ac.id  for prompt action to be taken.

Humaniora 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, Humaniora 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 Humaniora must adhere to the following guidelines:

  • The authorship should balance intellectual contributions to the conception, design, analysis, and writing of the manuscript against other work in relation to the research. If there is no task that can reasonably be attributed to a particular individual, this individual should not be credited with the authorship.
  • Authors must declare that the work reported is their own and that they are the copyright owner (or else have obtained the copyright owner's permission).
  • Authors must declare that the submitted article and its essential content have not previously been published and are not being considered for publication elsewhere.
  • The author should avoid disputes over attribution of academic credit. Therefore, it is helpful to decide early on who will be credited as corresponding author, contributors, and who will be acknowledged.
  • Authors must take public responsibility for the content of their paper. It is unethical to submit a manuscript to more than one journal concurrently.
  • Any conflict of interest must be clearly stated.
  • Authors must acknowledge the data sources of their research and should acknowledge financial support sources to the research if any.
  • All errors discovered in the manuscript after submission must be quickly communicated to the Editor.
  • Authors should state that the papers they submit have been approved by the relevant research ethics committee or institutional review board. If human participants were involved, manuscripts must be accompanied by a statement that the participants had signed informed consent forms.
  • Authors should submit a short description of all contributions to their manuscript. Each author's contribution should be described in brief. Authors of research papers should state whether they had complete access to the study data that support the publication. Contributors who do not qualify as authors should also be listed and their particular contribution described. This information should appear as an acknowledgment.
  • Authors should include information about their research fundings in their manuscripts.
  • Authors have a right to appeal editorial decisions.

Reviewers of Humaniora must adhere to the following guidelines:

  • All manuscripts are reviewed in fairness based on the intellectual content of the paper regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenry nor political values of the authors.
  • Any observed conflict of interest during the review process must be communicated to the editor.
  • All information pertaining to the manuscript is kept confidential.
  • Any information that may be the reason for a publication rejection must be communicated to the Editor.
  • The duty of confidentiality in the assessment of a manuscript must be maintained by expert reviewers, and this extends to reviewers’ colleagues who may be asked (with the editor’s permission) to give opinions on specific sections.
  • Submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied.
  • Reviewers and editors should not make any use of the data, arguments, or interpretations unless they have the authors’ permission.
  • Reviewers should provide speedy, accurate, courteous, unbiased, and justifiable reports.
  • Reviewers assigned to an article will comment on the following items:
    • The importance, originality, and timeliness of the study
    • Strengths and weaknesses of the study design and data analysis for research papers or the analysis and commentary for essays
    • Writing, organization, and presentation
    • The degree to which the findings justify the conclusion
    • The relevance, usefulness, and comprehensibility of the article for the Journal’s target audience.

Editors of Humaniora must adhere to the following guidelines:

  • Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal.
  • Editors must treat all submitted papers as confidential.
  • Editors should inform peer reviewers about this Misconduct.
  • Editors should encourage peer-reviewers to consider ethical issues raised by the research they are reviewing.
  • Editors should request additional information from authors if they feel this is required.
  • Editors should exercise sensitivity when publishing images of objects that might have cultural significance or cause offense.
  • Editors should inform readers if ethical breaches have occurred.
  • Editors should encourage peer-reviewers to decline peer-review request if they identify a conflict of interest with the manuscript.
  • Editors may assign peer-reviewers suggested by authors but should not consider suggestions made by authors as binding.
  • Editors should mediate all exchanges between authors and peer reviewers during the peer-review process (i.e. prior to publication). If agreement cannot be reached, editors should consider inviting comments from additional peer reviewer(s) if the editor feels that this would be helpful.
  • Decisions by editors about whether or not to publish submitted manuscripts must not be influenced by pressure from the editor's employer, the journal owner, or the publisher.
  • Editors should publish corrections for discovered errors that could affect the interpretation of data or information presented in a manuscript.
  • Editors should expect allegations of theft or plagiarism to be substantiated and should treat allegations of theft or plagiarism seriously.
  • Editors should keep peer-reviewers’ identities from authors. If peer-reviewers’ identities are revealed, editors should discourage authors from contacting peer-reviewers directly, especially when misconduct is suspected.
  • Editors should reserve the right to reject manuscripts if there is a doubt whether appropriate procedures have been followed. If a paper has been submitted from a country where there is no ethics committee or institutional review board, editors should use their own experience to judge whether or not the paper can be published. If the decision is made to publish a paper under this circumstance, a short statement should be included to explain this situation.
  • Editors should ensure timely peer-review and publication for manuscripts they receive, especially where findings may have important implications.
  • The Editorial Board is responsible for making publication decisions based on the reviewer’s evaluation, policies of the journal editorial board and legal restraint acting against plagiarism, libel, and copyright infringement.
(This Publication Ethics adopted from Committee on Publications Ethics-COPE)

 

Screening for Plagiarism

Manuscripts submitted to Humaniora are screened for plagiarism using a Turnitin. In accordance with our publication ethics, manuscripts found to have an unacceptable level of similarity to a previously published article are immediately rejected.

 

Digital Archiving

This journal utilizes the Indonesia One Search (IOS)Indonesian Scientific Journal Database (ISJD), and Indonesian Publication Index (IPI) 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.

 

Review Guidelines

Review Process of Manuscript: Initial Review

  1. Read the abstract to be sure that you have the expertise to review the article. Don’t be afraid to say no to reviewing an article if there is the good reason.
  2. Read information provided by the journal for reviewers so you will know: a) The type of manuscript (e.g., a review article, technical note, original research) and the journal’s expectations/parameters for that type of manuscript.; b) Other journal requirements that the manuscript must meet (e.g., length, citation style).
  3. Know the journal’s scope and mission to make sure that the topic of the paper fits in the scope.
  4. Ready? Read through entire manuscript initially to see if the paper is worth publishing- only make a few notes about major problems if such exist: a) Is the question of interest sound and significant?; b) Was the design and/or method used adequately or fatally flawed? (for original research papers); c) Were the results substantial enough to consider publishable (or were only two or so variables presented or resulted so flawed as to render the paper unpublishable)?
  5. What is your initial impression? If the paper is: a) Acceptable with only minor comments/questions: solid, interesting, and new; sound methodology used; results were well presented; discussion well formulated with Interpretations based on sound science reasoning, etc., with only minor comments/questions, move directly to writing up review; b) Fatally flawed so you will have to reject it: move directly to writing up review; c) A mixture somewhere in the range of “revise and resubmit” to “accepted with major changes” or you’re unsure if it should be rejected yet or not: It may be a worthy paper, but there are major concerns that would need to be addressed.

 Full Review Process of Manuscript

  1. Writing: Is the manuscript easy to follow, that is, has a logical progression and evident organisation?
  2. Is the manuscript concise and understandable? Any parts that should be reduced,
  3. Eliminated/expanded/added?
  4. Note if there are major problems with mechanics: grammar, punctuation, spelling. (If there are just a few places that aren’t worded well or correctly, make a note to tell the author the specific places. If there are consistent problems throughout, only select an example or two if need be- don’t try and edit the whole thing).
  5. Abbreviations: Used judiciously and are composed such that reader won’t have trouble remembering what an abbreviation represents.
  6. Follows style, format and other rules of the journal.
  7. Citations are provided when providing evidence-based information from outside sources.

 

Accreditation Certificate

Accreditation Number (Ministry of RTHE): 32a/E/KPT/2017

Valid thru: December 13th 2022