Focus and Scope

Lexicon is an open access, peer reviewed, academic journal published by the English Department, Universitas Gadjah Mada in cooperation with the English Studies Association in Indonesia (ESAI). It is devoted primarily to the publication of studies on English linguistics and literature. It covers a broad range of disciplinary fields, including phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, translation, modern literature, world literature, children literature and popular literature.

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Lexicon publishes articles on issues closely related to the English language and literature which are particularly relevant to the Indonesian context. We employ a double-blind peer review, which means that both the reviewers’ and authors’ identities are concealed from each other throughout 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 Lexicon'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 the 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 assess the content of the manuscript and provide its 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 Lexicon’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. Lexicon 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 Lexicon, is returned to the submitting author for proofreading and final approval.
9. Publication. The published article will appear in the latest issue of Lexicon. The order of articles in each issue is subject to the editorial team's decision. As long as an issue hasn't been published, its article composition still possibly changes. Thus, some accepted articles will be published right in the next issue, while others will be saved for upcoming issues.

Download Review Flowchart

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.

Archiving

Lexicon utilizes the LOCKSS, Crossref,  ISSN portal, and Garuda Indonesian Journal Database system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries. It permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration

Publication Ethics

This journal adheres to the ethical standards and guidelines established by the COPE’s (Committee on Publication Ethics) and is firmly committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly publication process. We strongly oppose all forms of plagiarism, duplicate publication, and simultaneous submissions. We require that all manuscripts submitted to the journal represent original work that has not been previously published or submitted elsewhere for consideration. This publication ethics statement outlines the responsibilities and expected ethical conduct of all parties involved in the publication process, including authors, editors, members of the Editorial Board, peer reviewers, and the publisher. To uphold these standards, the journal's editorial office conducts screening and cross-checking procedures to ensure the originality of submitted manuscripts and to verify that they have not been published prior to submission.

Authorship and Co-authorship

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made substantial contributions to the research and manuscript. Authors should not list AI tools as an author or co-author, nor cite AI tools as an author. Authorship implies responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed to and performed by humans. Authors must provide a declaration of their respective contributions during submission.

Any change in authorship after submission must be approved by all authors, supported by a written justification, and submitted to the editor for review. Changes after the final revision will only be considered under exceptional circumstances.

Gift, ghost, and honorary authorship are prohibited and may result in corrective action in accordance with COPE guidelines. Individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet authorship criteria should be acknowledged with their permission.

Post-publication Discussion

Readers, researchers, and other stakeholders are encouraged to communicate any comments, concerns, or observations regarding published content to the editorial office. Constructive post-publication discussions may be submitted as letters to the editor or formal responses and may be considered for publication following editorial review.

When errors, omissions, or inaccuracies are identified in published work, the editorial team will assess the matter and, where appropriate, publish a correction, erratum, or corrigendum linked to the original article to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.

In cases involving suspected research misconduct, data falsification, plagiarism, or other ethical breaches, an investigation will be conducted in accordance with COPE guidelines and may involve consultation with authors, reviewers, and relevant institutions. Depending on the findings, appropriate actions may include the publication of a correction, an Expression of Concern, or a retraction.

All post-publication notices will be made openly accessible to ensure transparency and to maintain the integrity, reliability, and credibility of the scholarly record. The editorial team is committed to addressing post-publication issues promptly, fairly, and transparently.

Conflict of Interest

All participants in the publication process, including authors, reviewers, and editors, must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could affect the review, interpretation, or publication of a manuscript. Conflicts may be financial, personal, professional, institutional, or otherwise capable of influencing objectivity.

Authors must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and funding sources at the time of submission. Reviewers should declare any competing interests and decline review assignments when impartiality cannot be maintained. Editors and editorial board members must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists.

Failure to disclose relevant conflicts of interest may result in corrective actions, including the publication of an Expression of Concern, article retraction, or other measures consistent with COPE guidelines. Transparency in the disclosure of competing interests is essential to maintaining the integrity and credibility of the scholarly record.

Data Availability

Authors must report research methods and findings accurately, transparently, and in sufficient detail to support verification and, where appropriate, reproducibility. The use of AI in the research or manuscript preparation process must be disclosed.

Data fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation are prohibited and may result in rejection, retraction, or other corrective actions. Authors are encouraged to make research data available through appropriate repositories or, where this is not possible, to clearly explain any restrictions on data access.

The editorial team may request access to underlying data to verify reported findings. Transparency, data integrity, and reproducibility are essential principles of responsible scholarly publishing.

Ethical Approval and Informed Consent

The data, results, or analyses presented in the submitted article do not violate the protection of human subjects or other valid privacy or security concerns. Please include this information after the conclusion of the article.

• If the research did not involve human subjects, animal subjects, or other valid privacy or security concerns, please note that it uses publicly accessible data and discloses the sources (URLs, websites, books, etc.).
• If the research involved human subjects, animal subjects, or other valid privacy or security concerns, please note that the author(s) had obtained the interviewees’, participants’, or other related parties’ consent to publish the work.

Screening for Plagiarism

Authors must ensure that all submitted work is original, properly attributed, and compliant with applicable copyright and licensing requirements. Any use of published text, data, figures, tables, or other materials must be appropriately cited and, where necessary, accompanied by permission from the copyright holder.

Plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and any unauthorized use of intellectual property constitute serious breaches of publication ethics. All submissions may be screened using plagiarism-detection software. A similarity index of up to 20% may be acceptable; however, the intentional use of uncited material, including AI-generated content presented without proper disclosure or attribution, is not permitted regardless of the overall similarity score.

The Responsible Use of AI-Tool Policy

• For Author 

Authors must disclose any substantive use of AI tools in manuscript preparation through an AI Declaration Statement submitted with the manuscript. The disclosure should identify the AI tool used, its purpose, and the extent of human oversight. Such statements may be published to promote transparency and accountability. Routine grammar, spelling, and punctuation checks do not require disclosure unless the AI tool significantly alters the content, structure, or organization of the text, indicated by the high percentage of AI index.

The use of AI-based accessibility tools does not require disclosure when used solely for accessibility purposes. Where AI is used as part of the research process, its application must be described appropriately in the Methods section. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of their work regardless of any AI assistance used.

• For Editor

Editors are responsible for ensuring the integrity, fairness, and quality of the editorial process and must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. Manuscripts and their contents must not be uploaded to AI tools or external platforms where confidentiality, intellectual property rights, or data privacy may be compromised.

Editorial decisions require independent human judgment and cannot be delegated to AI tools. While AI may be used in a limited, supportive capacity, such as improving the language of editorial correspondence or assisting with literature searches, editors remain fully responsible and accountable for all editorial assessments, decisions, and communications.

Editors may therefore only use AI tools in a supportive capacity, for example to improve the language or structure of their decision letters, or to assist with a background literature search, provided that confidentiality is maintained and human control and oversight are exercised.

• For Reviewer

Peer review is conducted under strict standards of confidentiality. Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and related materials as confidential documents and must not disclose, share, or use unpublished content for personal or professional advantage.

To protect authors' confidentiality, intellectual property, and privacy rights, reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts or any portion of their contents to AI tools or external platforms.

Reviewers are expected to provide independent, objective, and critical evaluations of the scholarly work. AI tools cannot replace professional judgment in the peer-review process, and reviewers remain fully responsible and accountable for the content, accuracy, and integrity of their review reports.

Editor Guidelines

Publication decisions
The editor-in-chief is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor-in-chief may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board’s suggestions and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding the journal manuscript’s liability, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor-in-chief may confer with other editors in the editorial Board and/or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play
An assigned editor and Reviewer can at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality
The editor-in-chief 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 own research without an expressed written consent of the author.

Allegation of Publication Misconduct (Correction, Retraction, and Withdrawal)

While the Editorial Board takes all reasonable measures to ensure the integrity and originality of submitted and published works, there are practical limits to the extent to which misconduct can be detected during the editorial and peer-review processes. Therefore, we encourage reviewers, readers, and members of the academic community to report any suspected research or publication misconduct to the journal's help desk officer via email so that appropriate action can be taken in a timely manner refering to the guidelines by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The fraudulences include, but not limited to:

1. data fabrication,
2. data falsification,
3. plagiarism,
4. authorship fraud (ghost authorship, gift authorship, or honorary authorship),
5. conflict of interest, and/or
6. double submission and double publication

Upon receiving a credible allegation of misconduct, the Editorial Board will conduct a preliminary assessment under the direction of the Chief Editor. Where concerns arise regarding the ability of the Editorial Board to conduct an impartial investigation, or where a conflict of interest is identified, the Chief Editor may recommend that the relevant faculty authorities establish an independent committee to investigate the matter. If the allegation is substantiated through the investigation process, the Chief Editor may take appropriate corrective measures, including but not limited to:

1. publishing a correction (erratum or corrigendum),
2. retracting the article, 
3. withdrawing the article, and/or 
4. removing an author from the authorship record where justified by the findings.

The journal is committed to maintaining a professional, respectful, and constructive peer-review environment. Accordingly, reviewers' comments and editorial correspondence must not contain personal attacks, discriminatory remarks, or offensive language directed at authors. Editors and reviewers are expected to evaluate and critique the scholarly content of a submission rather than the individual researcher. Any correspondence containing inappropriate, abusive, or unprofessional statements may be edited or rejected by the Editorial Board.