Publication Ethics

Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication

JEET: Journal of English Education and Technology is a premier scholarly vehicle for the dissemination of research in English Education, English Language Teaching (ELT), Instructional Design, Educational Technology, and Curriculum Development. We are committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and take all possible measures against any publication malpractices. In accordance with Elsevier policies and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines, all parties involved in the act of publishing (authors, editors, and reviewers) must agree upon standards of ethical behavior.

We ensure that advertising, reprints, or any other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

DUTIES OF AUTHORS

(based on Elsevier policies and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)

  • Reporting Standards: Authors of original research must present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data must be represented accurately. A manuscript 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 may be asked to provide raw data for editorial review. They should be prepared to provide public access to such data, where feasible, and must retain such data for a reasonable time after publication to ensure scientific transparency.
  • Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original. If the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this must be appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in all its forms—from 'passing off' another's paper as one's own to paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper without attribution—constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is strictly prohibited.
  • Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication: Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently is unethical. In general, an author should not submit a previously published paper for consideration in another journal.
  • Authorship of the Paper: Authorship is limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. All significant contributors must be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author must ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included and that they have seen and approved the final version of the paper before submission.
  • Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors must disclose any financial or substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be clearly disclosed.
  • Fundamental Errors in Published Works: When an author discovers a significant error in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and cooperate to retract or correct the paper.

DUTIES OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD

(Based on Elsevier policies and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)

  • Publication Decisions: The Editor-in-Chief of the double-blind peer-reviewed JEET: Journal of English Education and Technology is responsible for deciding which submitted manuscripts shall be published. These decisions are driven by the validation of the work and its significance to the academic community, particularly in EFL/ESL and educational technology. The Editor is guided by the journal's editorial policies and is bound by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor may consult with other editors or reviewers during the decision-making process.
  • Fair Play: The Editorial Board evaluates manuscripts based on their intellectual and scholarly content without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
  • Confidentiality: The Editor and editorial staff must maintain strict confidentiality regarding all submitted manuscripts. No information shall be disclosed 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. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors must recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors or institutions. All contributors are required to disclose relevant competing interests.
  • Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations: The Editor shall take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints arise concerning a submitted or published manuscript. In conjunction with the publisher, the Editor will follow COPE guidelines, which include contacting the author, providing due consideration of the claims, and communicating with relevant institutions. If the complaint is upheld, the Editor is responsible for the timely publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other relevant note. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be investigated, regardless of the time elapsed since publication.

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

(Based on Elsevier policies and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)

  • Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the Editor in making informed editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with the author, serves as a constructive process to help the author improve the quality of the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and is fundamental to the scientific method.
  • Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or determines that a timely review will be impossible should notify the Editor immediately and decline the invitation to review.
  • 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. This confidentiality extends to the prohibition of uploading the manuscript into generative AI tools or any external platforms that may compromise the author’s intellectual property.
  • Standards of Objectivity: Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is strictly inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and evidence, ensuring that the feedback is constructive and free from bias.
  • 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 has been previously reported must be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers are also obligated to notify the Editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work of which they have personal knowledge.
  • Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers must decline to review 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 associated with the paper.

REVIEWER EVALUATION CHECKLIST

(Standardized for Scopus Indexing Criteria)

  1. General Quality & Scope
  1. Relevance: Apakah topik manuskrip sesuai dengan ruang lingkup Journal of English Education and Technology?
  2. Originality: Apakah artikel ini memberikan kontribusi baru (novelty) bagi bidang pengajaran bahasa Inggris (EFL/ESL) atau teknologi pendidikan?
  3. Title & Abstract: Apakah judul mencerminkan isi dengan akurat? Apakah abstrak merangkum tujuan, metode, hasil, dan simpulan secara jelas?
  1. Content & Methodology
  1. Literature Review: Apakah penulis telah mensitasi literatur terbaru dan relevan (terutama dari jurnal bereputasi 5-10 tahun terakhir)?
  2. Research Design: Apakah metodologi dijelaskan dengan detail sehingga memungkinkan untuk direplikasi? (Penting: Apakah instrumen penelitian valid dan reliabel?)
  3. Findings: Apakah data disajikan secara logis dengan tabel/gambar yang jelas?
  4. Discussion: Apakah penulis membandingkan temuan mereka dengan teori atau penelitian sebelumnya? Apakah ada interpretasi yang mendalam, bukan sekadar mengulang data?

III. Language & Ethics

  1. English Proficiency: Apakah kualitas bahasa Inggris (tata bahasa, gaya penulisan, terminologi linguistik) sudah memenuhi standar akademik internasional?
  2. Ethical Compliance: Apakah ada indikasi plagiarisme atau pengabaian terhadap hak subjek penelitian (terutama jika melibatkan siswa/guru)?
  3. References: Apakah semua kutipan dalam teks ada di daftar pustaka, dan apakah formatnya (misalnya APA 7th) sudah konsisten?

Reviewer Recommendation

Reviewer wajib memilih salah satu opsi di bawah ini disertai argumen yang kuat:

  • Accept: Manuskrip sangat luar biasa dan tidak memerlukan revisi.
  • Minor Revision: Perlu perbaikan kecil pada bahasa atau penambahan referensi tanpa mengubah struktur utama.
  • Major Revision: Memerlukan perubahan signifikan pada data, metodologi, atau pembahasan sebelum bisa dipertimbangkan kembali.
  • Reject: Manuskrip memiliki cacat fatal secara metodologis, tidak ada kebaruan, atau di luar ruang lingkup jurnal.