Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

POETIKA: Jurnal Ilmu Sastra holds academic articles within the scope of literary criticism. The articles cover the form of a result on specific analysis; academic reports; closed reading; and the application of certain theory to enrich literary study. The journal is also accepting book review.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Articles are reviewed by two independent experts in the relevant area. The reviewers make a scientific assessment and a recommendation to the editors. Reviewers remain unknown to authors. The Handling editor considers the manuscript and the reviewers’ comments before making a final decision either to accept, accept with revision or to reject a manuscript.

 

Publication Frequency

Jurnal POETIKA is a half-yearly journal, number 1-2 are scheduled for published in July and December.

 

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

Jurnal Poetika is highly committed to maintain the highest standards of publication ethics and support ethical research practices. It is strictly against the ethics of academic article publication for duplication of publication, as such, articles to be submitted to Jurnal Poetika must be with the understanding that same had not been published and is not being considered for publication elsewhere. Allegations of misconduct will be investigated by the editorial teams. As for the readers, if notified a potential break of publication ethics, JP encourage you to inform the journal editors and staff as soon as possible.

JP take publication ethics very seriously, together with that, the editorial teams provide best practice guidelines in the following key areas:

Authorship

JP expects all published articles to contain clear and accurate attribution of authorship. It is the responsibility of the author to ensure that all authors that contributed to the work are fairly acknowledged and that the published author list accurately reflects the individual contributions. Where authors employ the services of third party agencies prior to submission for instance in language editing or article formatting/preparation, they must ensure that all services comply with the following guidelines:

Attribution and acknowledgement

The authorship must be based on the following 4 criteria:

  • Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, interpretation of data for the work; and
  • Drafting the work or revisiting it critically for important intellectual content; and
  • Final approval of the version to be published.
  • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors.

Corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the article submission, peer review, and typically ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration, documentation and gathering. The corresponding author should be available after publication to respond the critiques of the work and cooperate with any requests from the journal for data or additional information should questions about the paper arise after publication.

When a large multi-author group has conducted the work, the group ideally should decide who will be an author before the work is started and confirm who is an author before submitting the article for publication. Some large multi-author groups designate authorship by a group name, with or without the names of the individuals. When submitting an article authored by a group, the corresponding author should specify the group name if one exist, and clearly identify the group members who can take the credit and responsibility for the work as authors.

Contributors who meet fewer than all 4 of the above criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should be acknowledged. Examples of the activities that alone (without other contributions) do not qualify a contribution for authorship are acquisition of funding, general supervision of a research group or general administrative support and writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, and proofreading. Those who contributions do not justify authorship may be acknowledged individually or together as a group under a single heading (e.g. “clinical investigator”) or specified (e.g. “critically reviewed the study proposal,” “collected data”).

Article Submission

JP take every effort to ensure that editors, peer reviewers and journal administrators treat all the submission respectfully. JP expect that all individuals submitting articles to the journal abide by established publishing standard and ethics. In proven cases of misconduct, the action taken will be vary, but could result in one or more of the following:

  • Retraction of published work.
  • Publication of or a correction or statement of concern.
  • Refusal of future submission.
  • Notification of misconduct sent to an author’s local institution, superior, and/or ethics committee.

a.    Redundant publication

JP evaluate submissions on the understanding that they have not been previously published in or simultaneously submitted elsewhere. The editors will keep a clear record of all communications between authors, editors and peer reviewers regarding the submissions they handle. These records are carefully stored and may be used to facilitate investigations into possible cases of misconduct.

b.    Plagiarism

JP evaluate submission on the understanding that they are the original work or the author (s). We expect that the references made in article to another person’s work or idea will be credited appropriately. Re-use text, data, figures or images without appropriate acknowledgement or permission is considered plagiarism, as is the paraphrasing of text, concepts and ideas.

c.    Defamation

Whilst striving to promote freedom of expression wherever possible, JP aim to avoid publishing anything that harms the reputation of an individual, business, group or organization unless it can be proven to be true. We take all possible measures to ensure that published work is free of any text that is, or may be considered to be libelous, slanderous or defamatory.

Fair Editing and Peer Review

All participants in the publishing process are encouraged to adhere to established principles of ethical publishing. This extends from authors to journal editors, reviewers, journal administrators, and publishing staff.

a.    Editorial independence

Editors have full editorial independence. They need to have clearly defined processes and policies for the handling of contributions by the editor or members of the editorial board to ensure that, where appropriate, these submissions receive an equivalent level of peer review to any other submission.

b.    Peer reviewer and reviewer conduct

Articles are reviewed by two independent experts in the relevant area. The reviewers make a scientific assessment and a recommendation to the editors. Reviewers remain unknown to authors. The Handling editor considers the manuscript and the reviewers’ comments before making a final decision either to accept, accept with revision or to reject a manuscript.

c.    Confidentiality

Unless otherwise specified, JP expects editors and reviewers to handle all submissions in confidence. If a reviewer wishes to delegate the review or seek the opinion of a colleague on a specific aspect of the paper, they are expected to clear this with the editor in the first instance.

d.   Peer review fraud

It is the responsibility of the lead author to ensure that only genuine reviewers and reviewer contact details are put forward. Any suspected or alleged instances of authors submitting fabricated reviewer details will be thoroughly investigated. If such allegations are proven, the article in question will be immediately rejected or, if already published, retracted. The journal would typically notify the authors’ institutional or local ethics council and may also impose a ban on further submissions from the author group.

 

Screening for Plagiarism

The Manuscript that submitted into this journal will be screened for plagiarism using Aimos 2.0

 

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 archieving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archieves of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration

 

Statistic Download Article

Statistic download using ALM Plugin, statistic will show on every article page.

ex. https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/poetika/article/view/15717

 

Review Guideline

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.