Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Humaniora has maintained a long tradition of contributing to scholarship on the Humanities of Indonesia. These studies in Humanities include a wide range of fields, of which the Journal seeks to encourage the expansion. Intending to increase attention toward Indonesian Humanities, signified precisely by the name Humaniora, this Journal acknowledges the patent diversity and extent of Indonesian Humanities, and their elements, and seeks to encourage work on this infinite range of facets within human diversity. The Journal notes that the Humanities is both one significant part of the overall Human Science spectrum, and concomitantly forever shifting, evolving, and merging with other fields, where Humanities is constantly evolving to accommodate a modern Indonesia.

As such, Humaniora calls for work on the Humanities, in all of their scopes, relevant to Indonesia, and at times, the comparative study of Indonesia with other regions. These studies, and observances, in the form of a concise journal paper, shall develop critical understandings of Indonesia, pertinent to its progressive and concurrently richly diverse Humanities.

The emphasis of the Journal is manifold: This emphasis includes the garnering, analysis, and dissemination of information pertaining to Indonesian Humanities, the accurate and thick description of observed and lived Humanities of Indonesia, the increase in quality of critique of Indonesian Humanities, the strengthening of critical approaches to Indonesian Humanities, the forging of interdisciplinary work, and hence new fields of scholarship, within the Indonesian Humanities, and the encouraging of innovative methodologies, and evolving permutations of these methodologies, for the investigation of the Humanities pertinent to Indonesia.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

This journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.

 

Publication Frequency

Humaniora is a triannual peer-reviewed academic journal, published on every 25th of 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 limit to the extent that Humaniora can examine submitted works. As such, we call upon external reviewers and the academia community to report any misconduct to our help desk officer via humaniora@ugm.ac.id  for prompt action to be taken.

Humaniora may innitiate 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.
  • 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 acknowledgement.
  • 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.
  • A 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 offence.
  • Editors should inform readers if ethical breaches have occurred.
  • Editors should encourage peer-reviewers to delcline 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 timelypeer-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 restrain acting against plagiarism, libel, and copyright infringement.
(This Publication Ethics adopted from Committe on Publications Ethics-COPE)

 

Screening for Plagiarism

The manuscripts submitted into Humaniora will be screened for plagiarism with plagiarism checker tool.

 

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.

 

Statistic Download Article

Statistic download will be showed on every article page.

 

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