Publication Ethics

Basastra: Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra, dan Pengajarannya promotes honest research reporting, fair editorial assessment, and a trustworthy scholarly record. These policies apply to authors, reviewers, editors, editorial staff, and the publisher, including those involved in special issues. Relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) informs the handling of publication-ethics concerns.

Authors’ responsibilities

Authors must present their work accurately, distinguish evidence from interpretation, acknowledge limitations, and cite relevant sources fairly. Fabrication, falsification, misleading image manipulation, plagiarism, duplicate submission, and unjustified redundant publication are unacceptable. Related manuscripts and earlier dissemination must be disclosed so that editors can assess originality. Authors must obtain necessary permissions for reused material and cooperate when questions about their work arise.

Authorship must reflect genuine intellectual contributions and accountability, as explained in Authorship and Contributorship. All authors must approve the submitted manuscript and the version intended for publication. Funding, competing interests, and permitted AI assistance must be disclosed. Significant errors discovered after publication must be reported promptly.

Editors’ responsibilities

Editors assess submissions on scholarly quality, originality, relevance, and ethical compliance, without discrimination or improper commercial influence. They protect confidential information, select appropriate reviewers, and give reasoned decisions. Editors must not exploit unpublished findings or require irrelevant citations. A conflicted editor must not handle the affected submission. Special issues remain subject to editorial oversight and the journal’s normal ethical standards.

Reviewers’ responsibilities

Reviewers should accept assignments only when they have suitable expertise and can meet the agreed schedule. Reviews must be objective, constructive, and supported by reasons. Reviewers must disclose competing interests, protect confidentiality, and report suspected irregularities privately to the editor. They must not use unpublished material for personal advantage or involve another person without permission. Fabricated reviews, impersonation, collusion, and coercive citation are prohibited.

Publisher’s responsibilities

The publisher supports independent editorial decisions and provides an appropriate framework for ethical case handling and maintenance of the publication record. Fees, sponsorship, and advertising must not determine acceptance. The peer-review model and publication procedures are described separately on the journal’s website.

Data, reproducibility, and research ethics

Authors must describe methods sufficiently for informed assessment and retain the evidence supporting their findings. A Data Availability Statement should explain where supporting data and code can be accessed or why access is restricted. Ethical or privacy restrictions must be respected; justified restrictions should not be presented as unrestricted availability. Figures must faithfully represent their underlying evidence.

Where required, research involving humans, identifiable personal information, or animals must receive appropriate approval before it begins. Authors must identify the approving body and approval reference, or explain an authorized exemption. Applicable consent, welfare, confidentiality, and permission requirements must be met. Identifiable personal material must not be published without the necessary consent.

Publication Fee

The submission and review of papers in the BASASTRA: Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra, dan Pengajarannya are free. A small amount of IDR 500.000 per paper for article processing fee, however, will be requested before the publication of the article.

Allegation of Research Misconduct

Concerns about fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, manipulated peer review, or other serious breaches may be raised before or after publication. Reports should be sent through the journal’s official editorial contact, identifying the submission or article, the concern, available evidence, and any relevant competing interests. A sufficiently specific anonymous report may also be assessed.

An editor or independent representative will examine the evidence and any conflicts affecting the assessment. The authors will normally be invited to explain the concern and provide relevant records. Independent specialists or the authors’ institutions may be consulted. Institutions investigate the conduct of their researchers; the journal determines the appropriate action concerning its submissions and publications.

The response will reflect the evidence and seriousness of the problem. Possible outcomes include clarification, further review, rejection, a correction, an expression of concern, or retraction. Confidential information will be shared only as necessary for fair assessment. Withdrawal does not automatically close an unresolved integrity case. Complaints about case handling follow Complaints and Appeals.

Complaints and Appeals

Complaints may concern editorial conduct, peer review, or publication procedures. An appeal challenges a specific editorial decision. Both should be submitted through the journal’s official editorial contact with the article or manuscript identifier, reasons, supporting evidence, and relevant competing interests. Good-faith complainants will not be penalized for raising a concern; credible anonymous complaints may be considered.

An unconflicted editor or independent representative will review the matter. A person whose conduct is challenged must not decide their own case. The assessment may include the original decision, review reports, responses from those involved, and independent advice. An appeal does not guarantee acceptance or reversal of the decision.

The journal will communicate its reasoned outcome to the relevant parties while protecting confidentiality as far as practicable. Any submission restriction must be proportionate, justified, time-limited, and open to appeal. Research-integrity allegations are handled under Allegation of Research Misconduct.

Post-publication Discussions

Readers may submit evidence-based comments, questions, or criticisms about published articles through the editorial office. Contributions should identify the article, explain the issue clearly, cite supporting material where appropriate, and disclose competing interests. Discussion should address the work rather than attack individuals.

Editors assess correspondence for relevance, accuracy, scholarly value, and respectful presentation. They may edit accepted contributions for clarity or length and moderate online comments where that facility exists. Authors will normally be invited to answer substantive criticism. Accepted comments and responses may be linked to the article.

Scholarly disagreement does not itself establish an error or misconduct. Concerns affecting reliability or ethical compliance will be examined under the relevant investigation and publication-record policies rather than treated solely as debate.

Correction and Retraction

Authors and readers should report substantive errors or integrity concerns through the editorial office. The journal assesses whether clarification, correction, an expression of concern, or retraction is necessary to protect readers and the scholarly record.

Corrections

A correction addresses a material error or omission when the central findings remain reliable. The notice identifies the article, explains the changes, and links to the corrected record. Changes must be transparent, dated, and distinguishable from the original version; earlier versions should be preserved. Author-originated and production-originated errors may be identified as a corrigendum or erratum, respectively.

Expressions of concern

An expression of concern may alert readers to a substantial unresolved issue when an investigation is incomplete or reliable conclusions cannot yet be reached. It is not a finding of misconduct. The notice will be updated or followed by another notice when sufficient information becomes available.

Retractions

Retraction may be appropriate when findings are unreliable because of major error, fabrication, or falsification; when an article involves plagiarism or unjustified redundant publication; when material was used without authorization or serious rights violations occurred; when research was unethical; when peer review was compromised; or when a major undisclosed competing interest materially affected interpretation or editorial assessment.

A retraction notice identifies the affected article, who is retracting it, and the evidence-based reasons. It distinguishes honest error from established misconduct where possible. The notice and article will be linked, and the article will ordinarily remain accessible with prominent retraction labeling. Authors will be consulted, but their agreement is not required for justified action. Removal is exceptional and requires a compelling reason.

Conflict of Interest

A competing interest is a relationship or activity that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, impartial judgment. It may be financial or non-financial, including employment, consultancy, funding, shareholdings, patents, personal relationships, recent collaboration, academic rivalry, or strongly held interests relevant to the work. Disclosure does not by itself establish wrongdoing.

Authors must disclose relevant interests at submission, update them when necessary, and identify funding and the funder’s role. An explicit statement is required when no relevant competing interests exist. Appropriate author disclosures will accompany the published article.

Reviewers must disclose relevant interests before accepting an invitation and decline or stop reviewing when impartiality cannot be maintained. Editors and staff must withdraw from affected decisions; submissions involving an editor require independent handling. The publisher must not allow its financial interests to determine editorial outcomes.

Newly discovered interests will be assessed for their effect on the work and the decision-making process. A published disclosure may be corrected; more serious concerns may require further investigation or other action under Correction and Retraction.

Plagiarism Policy

The journal requires original work and proper acknowledgment of others’ ideas, wording, data, and images. Unattributed copying, misleading paraphrase, and presenting another person’s work as one’s own are unacceptable. Permission, where required, is separate from the obligation to cite the source.

All submitted manuscripts are subject to similarity screening using plagiarism-detection software, such as Turnitin. The maximum acceptable similarity index is 25%. Manuscripts exceeding this threshold may be returned to authors for revision or rejected, depending on the extent and nature of the identified overlap. Meeting the 25% threshold does not automatically establish originality or guarantee acceptance. Editors assess the nature, extent, attribution, and context of overlapping content, as a similarity score alone does not constitute definitive evidence of plagiarism.

Authors must disclose substantial overlap with their own earlier work and related submissions. Reuse must be justified, attributed, and consistent with publication and permission requirements. Preprints or other earlier dissemination should be disclosed for assessment under the journal’s applicable policy.

Suspected plagiarism is assessed fairly, with an opportunity for explanation. Depending on the findings, action may include revision, rejection, correction, retraction, or institutional referral. AI-assisted content remains subject to the same originality and attribution requirements.

AI Tools Usage Policy

AI-assisted tools do not qualify as authors and cannot accept responsibility for a manuscript. Human authors, reviewers, and editors remain accountable for their work. Use of AI does not excuse inaccuracies, invented references, plagiarism, undisclosed interests, or breaches of confidentiality.

Use by authors

AI tools may assist language editing, grammar correction, translation, and readability under meaningful human supervision. They must not replace the authors’ intellectual contribution or be used to fabricate scientific content, data, images, analyses, or references. Authors must verify every claim, quotation, citation, and output before submission.

Report relevant generative-AI assistance at submission and in a clearly identified disclosure in the manuscript. State the tool and version where available, the purpose of use, and how the output was checked. Assistance used in research methods, including data processing, must also be described in the Methods section with enough detail for evaluation and reproducibility. Routine non-generative spelling or reference-formatting functions do not normally require a separate declaration.

Authors must protect personal information, confidential data, and third-party rights. They must not upload protected material to a service unless that use is authorized and its confidentiality arrangements are suitable. Generative AI must not create or alter images presented as research evidence; legitimate image processing must be transparent and must not misrepresent the underlying observations.

Use by reviewers

Reviewers must not upload a manuscript, extracts, figures, or review reports to a public or third-party AI service where confidentiality cannot be assured. An author’s decision to use AI does not authorize reviewers to disclose the manuscript. AI cannot substitute for expert assessment or a reviewer’s accountable judgment.

A reviewer must seek prior editorial permission before using AI in the assessment and disclose any permitted assistance. The reviewer remains responsible for checking the review’s accuracy and fairness. Suspected misuse should be reported privately rather than asserted on the basis of an automated AI-detection score alone.

Use by editors and editorial staff

Editors and staff are bound by equivalent confidentiality, privacy, and accountability requirements. Any authorized AI-supported workflow must have appropriate safeguards and human oversight. AI must not make the final acceptance, rejection, or integrity determination. Material misuse will be assessed under the journal’s relevant ethics and publication-record procedures.

Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship recognizes substantial scholarly contribution and carries responsibility for the published work. All listed authors must meet all four criteria below, and everyone who meets them must be included:

1. A substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of its data.
2. Drafting the work or critically revising it for important intellectual content.
3. Final approval of the version to be published.
4. Agreement to be accountable for the work and to help ensure that questions about its accuracy or integrity are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Funding acquisition, general supervision, administrative support, or language editing alone does not justify authorship. Contributors who do not meet every criterion should be acknowledged, with their permission and a description of their contribution. Gift, honorary, guest, and ghost authorship are unacceptable. Author order must be agreed by the authors, not imposed by the editorial office.

Corresponding author and accountability

The corresponding author manages communication, confirms author approval, and coordinates required disclosures and responses. This role does not remove the responsibilities of other authors. Authors should identify who can verify the supporting records and answer questions about the integrity of the work. Where a guarantor is designated, that person accepts responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole.

Contributor roles

A contribution statement should identify each author’s actual work, using relevant roles from the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT). One person may have several roles, and several people may share a role. A role designation does not by itself establish eligibility for authorship.

Changes in authorship and disputes

Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors must explain the reason and include written agreement from all affected authors, including anyone being added or removed. The journal may pause processing while a request is assessed. Changes after publication require a transparent notice where approved.

Editors do not adjudicate unresolved disputes about who deserves authorship. Such disputes may be referred to the relevant institutions, and consideration or publication may be paused while they are resolved. Undisclosed contributors and inappropriate authorship may also require an integrity investigation.

Ownership and Management

Basastra: Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra, dan Pengajarannya is owned and published by Universitas Sebelas Maret (UNS) and managed by the Indonesian Language Education Study Program, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Sebelas Maret. The journal cooperates with Asosiasi Dosen Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia (ADOBSI). Current editors and their affiliations are listed on the Editorial Team page. Official editorial contact information is available on the Contact page. Changes in ownership or management will be communicated transparently.

The owner and publisher are responsible for the journal’s organizational and publishing framework. The editor-in-chief and delegated editors are responsible for scholarly assessment, reviewer selection, editorial decisions, and the integrity of published content. Editorial authority must be independent of commercial, institutional, political, or personal pressure.

Funding, publication charges, advertising, and sponsorship must be disclosed transparently where applicable. Payment or a funding relationship does not guarantee acceptance or privileged treatment. Concerns about ownership or management may be raised through the official editorial contact; a complaint involving a decision-maker must be assessed independently.