Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Lexicon: Journal of English Language and Literature, or Lexicon for short, 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 language and literature. It publishes original articles written exclusively in English twice a year in April and October. Manuscript submission is free of charge and open all year round to any author all across the globe.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked 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

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS 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. More...

 

Publication Ethics

The following guidelines are adapted from COPE’s (Committee on Publication Ethics) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

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.

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.

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, they should have 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 of 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.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other 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.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer-reviewers assist the editor-in-chief 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.

Privacy
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-in-chief.

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 that had been previously reported should be accompanied by relevant citation. A reviewer should also call onto the editor-in-chief's attention on 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 that resulted from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

 

Plagiarism Check

Manuscripts submitted to Lexicon are subjected to plagiarism check using Turnitin. The maximum acceptable similarity check result is 20%. In accordance with our publication ethics, manuscripts found to have an unacceptable level of similarity are immediately rejected.