Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Sabdasastra : Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Jawa (ISSN 2620-343X [Print] and 2986-3074 [Online]) is a peer-reviewed journal published by Pendidikan Bahasa Jawa, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Sebelas Maret. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewer­­­­­ and the publisher. This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed Sabdasastra : Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Jawa  is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society.

Pendidikan Bahasa Jawa, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Sebelas Maret as publisher of Sabdasastra : Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Jawa  takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, Pendidikan Bahasa Jawa, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Sebelas Maret  and Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.

Publication Decisions

The editor of the Sabdasastra : Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Jawa  journal is 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.

Fair play

An editor at any time evaluates 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 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 the express written consent of the author.

Duties of Reviewers

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.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts 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.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

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 manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

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 manuscripts 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.

Duties of Authors

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 behavior and are unacceptable.

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.

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.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

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.

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.

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 manuscript.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or another substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

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.

Plagiarism

Authors should submit only original work that is not plagiarized and not has been published or being considered elsewhere. Turnitin software will be used by the editorial team to check for similarities of a submitted manuscript with existing literature. If an article has over 25% of the total plagiarism, its will be rejected.

Retraction

The papers published in Sabdasastra : Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Jawa  will be considered to retract in the publication if:

1. They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation)
2. It constitutes plagiarism
3. The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication)
4. It contains material or data without authorisation for use
5. Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy)
6. It reports unethical research
7. It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process
8. The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use 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.

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 Discussion

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.

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.

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

The journal is affiliated with Universitas Sebelas Maret (UNS). The journal’s legal owner, publisher, and responsible management body are identified on its official website, together with current editorial contact information. Their respective roles and relationships must be clear. Editorial-board members and editors are listed with appropriate affiliations. Changes in ownership or management must 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.