- Publication Frequency
- Publication Ethics
- Plagiarism Policy
- References Management
- Retraction and/or Corrections
- Publication Fees
- Review Guidelines
Focus and Scope
JOLLAR focuses on the publication of articles that transcend disciplines and appeal to a diverse readership, advancing the study of humanities from the perspective of Indonesian or Indonesia-related culture. These are articles discussing norms, values, worldviews and symbolic meanings that strengthen critical approaches, increase the quality of critique, or innovate methodologies in the investigation of Indonesian humanities.
Although submitted articles may originate from a diverse range of fields, such as history, anthropology, archaeology, tourism, or media studies, they must be presented within the context of Indonesian culture and focus on the development of a critical understanding of Indonesia’s rich and diverse culture. Only original research articles and book reviews are accepted
PDF Example with iframe
|Open Submissions||Indexed||Peer Reviewed|
Peer Review Process
JOLLAR aims to publish articles that uncover new depths in the study of humanities. These articles should be able to contribute to and advance our current understanding of Indonesian humanities, and specifically Indonesian or Indonesia-related culture with a sound scientific basis. To ensure this, 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:
- Initial screening. All submissions are initially screened by the Editor-in-Chief for their conformity to JOLLAR'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.
- 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.
- Peer review. During this stage, a reviewer will assess the content of the manuscript and provide its recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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 JOLLAR’s standards, the manuscript is rejected.
- 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. JOLLAR 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.
- Typesetting. Once greenlit, the manuscript is handed over to the journal’s typesetter. The final version of the article, as it will appear in JOLLAR, is returned to the submitting author for proofreading and final approval.
- Publication. Congratulations! The published article will appear in the latest issue of JOLLAR. 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.
Journal of Language Learning and Research (JOLLAR) is a Journal published online biannually in June 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.
This journal is open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to users or / institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to full text articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or author. This is in accordance with The Budapest Open Access Initiative.
Journal of Language Learning and Research (JOLLAR) (E-ISSN 2502-3489) is a peer-reviewed journal published by the S2 Pendidikan Bahasa Indonesia dan Sastra, Sekolah Pascasarjana, Universitas Muhammadiyah Prof. DR. HAMKA. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of posting an article in this journal, including the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewers and the publisher. This statement based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed Journal of Language Learning and Research (JOLLAR) 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 essential 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.
Universitas Muhammadiyah Prof. DR. HAMKA Press as publisher of Journal of Language Learning and Research (JOLLAR) takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing seriously, and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or additional commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. Besides, S2 Pendidikan Dasar, Sekolah Pascasarjana, Universitas Muhammadiyah Prof. DR. HAMKA, and the Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and publishers where this is useful and necessary.
The editor of the Journal of Language Learning and Research (JOLLAR) 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.
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.
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 use in an editor's research without the express written consent of the author.
Duties of Peer-Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer-reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also help the author in improving the paper.
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.
Any manuscripts received for review must be considered as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Peer-review process should conduct objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Peer-reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument reported should accompany by the appropriate 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. Peer-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
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 behaviour 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 actions and if the authors have used the works, or words of others that this has 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 paper concurrently to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be provided. 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 article and have agreed to its submission for publication.
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.
Journal of Language Learning and Research (JOLLAR) editorial board recognises that plagiarism is not acceptable and therefore establishes the following policy stating specific actions (penalties) upon identification of plagiarism/similarities in articles submitted for publication in JOLLAR. JOLLAR will use Turnitin's originality checking software as the tool in detecting similarities of texts in article manuscripts and the final version of articles ready for publication. A maximum of 20% of similarities is allowed for the submitted papers. Should we find more than 20% of the similarity index, the article will be returned to the author for correction and resubmission.
Level of Plagiarism
Minor: A short section of another article is plagiarised without any significant data or idea taken from the other paper
Action: A warning is given to the authors and a request to change the text and properly cite the original article is made
Intermediate: A significant portion of a paper is plagiarised without proper citation to the original paper
Action: The submitted article is rejected and the authors are forbidden to submit further articles for one year
Severe: A significant portion of a paper is plagiarised that involves reproducing original results or ideas presented in another publication
Action: The paper is rejected and the authors are forbidden to submit further articles for five years.
It is understood that all authors are responsible for the content of their submitted paper as they all read and understand JOLLAR ' Copyright and Licensing Terms. If a penalty is imposed for plagiarism, all authors will be subject to the same penalty.
In writing Citation and Bibliography, Journal of Language Learning and Research (JOLLAR) uses the Mendeley Reference Management Software.
Retraction and/or Corrections
Authors are discouraged from withdrawing submitted manuscripts after it is in the publication process (review, copyedit, layout, etc.,). During the time, Journal of Language Learning and Research (JOLLAR) had spent valuable resources besides time spent in the process. Should under any circumstances that the author(s) still request for a withdrawal, author(s) should pay back every effort put into the manuscript processes at an amount of IDR 0. No payment need upon official request from the author(s) in an email sent to Journal of Language Learning and Research (JOLLAR)'s editor using the same email address used in correspondence.
Journal of Language Learning and Research (JOLLAR)' s editors shall consider retracting a publication if:
- They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of a major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error) or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation);
- It constitutes plagiarism;
- 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);
- It contains material or data without authorisation for use;
- Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy);
- It reports unethical research;
- It has been published solely based on a compromised or manipulated peer review process;
- 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.
Notices of retraction would:
- Be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (ie, in all online versions);
- Clearly identify the retracted article (eg, by including the title and authors in the retraction heading or citing the retracted article);
- Be clearly identified as a retraction (ie, distinct from other types of correction or comment);
- Be published promptly to minimise the harmful effects;
- Be freely available to all readers (ie, not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers);
- State who is retracting the article;
- State the reason(s) for retraction;
- Be objective, factual and avoid inflammatory language
Retractions are not usually appropriate if:
- The authorship is disputed but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings;
- The main findings of the work are still reliable and correction could sufficiently address errors or concerns;
- An editor has inconclusive evidence to support retraction or is awaiting additional information such as from an institutional investigation;
- Author conflicts of interest have been reported to the journal after publication, but in the editor’s view, these are not likely to have influenced interpretations or recommendations or the conclusions of the article.
Journal of Language Learning and Research (JOLLAR)'s editors shall consider issuing an expression of concern if:
- they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors;
- there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case;
- they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been or would not be, fair and impartial, or conclusive;
- an investigation is underway but a judgment will not be available for a considerable time
Journal of Language Learning and Research (JOLLAR)'s editors shall consider issuing a correction if:
- a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error);
- the author/contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included);
No fees incurred for article processing, submission, and publication.
Under the aforementioned condition, we are waiving in full for authors from developing countries should they need to submit papers toJournal of Language Learning and Research (JOLLAR).
However, should authors or other parties needed print/hard copies of the journal, an IDR 100,000/copy should be paid for the printing, binding, and post (Indonesian postal service). Please note that international courier delivery service will cost more and need separate discussion.
Please send us an email stating your interest in printed copies and receive further details.
All papers submitted to JOLLAR undergo a rigorous peer review to ensure that they not only fit into the journal's scope but are of sufficient academic quality and novelty to appeal to our readers. As a reviewer, you are required to uphold this standard.
These guidelines will help you understand your responsibilities as a reviewer, as well as your ethical obligations to both the journal and the authors. You will also be introduced to what you should be looking for in a manuscript so that your review will be consistent with others requested by the journal. This is particularly important as all articles submitted to JOLLAR should be evaluated on a level playing field.
Your responsibilities as a reviewer
As a reviewer, you are responsible for reading the manuscript and evaluating its suitability for publication in JOLLAR. You are expected to provide constructive, impartial, unambiguous, and honest feedback to the authors, with the purpose of encouraging them to improve their manuscript to the point that it can be published in JOLLAR.
Your role in JOLLAR’s commitment to author development
We believe that publication is not an endpoint, but rather—through its function as a facilitator of scientific debate—one step of many in an author’s evolution. Any author, but especially one in the early stages of their career, should come out of the review process has improved as a writer and researcher. For this reason, JOLLAR urges reviewers to not only do their part in helping a manuscript reach its potential but to draw from their wealth of experience to help up-and-coming authors find their true voice. By providing thoughtful, constructive criticism that authors can use to shape their subsequent writing, you aid us in paying the knowledge forward.
A further contribution you make is in establishing a standard of good reviewing practices, showing through example how a peer review is to be conducted.
Conversely, we must also emphasize that any form of criticism aimed at demoralizing an author is unacceptable, regardless of a manuscript’s academic merit (or lack thereof). Reviewer comments that in any way intimidate, denigrate, or discourage an author from pursuing the publication of their present or any future article are not tolerated, and any reviewer who exhibits this detrimental behavior will be permanently barred from contributing further to JOLLAR.
JOLLAR relies on the impartiality and discretion of its reviewers, and as one, you have entrusted with confidential material meant solely for critical evaluation. Without exception, you must treat all documents and correspondence related to the review with care. You should:
- Never use any of the information related to the review for the advancement of your own research or career, or to discredit another party.
- Never discuss any aspect of the manuscript with a third party.
- Ensure that all information and details related to the review and the review process remain confidential before, during, and after publication.
- Maintain the integrity of the double-blind peer review process. Do not under any circumstances contact any of the authors to discuss their manuscript.
- Be fair, honest, and objective in your evaluation of the manuscript.
- Declare a conflict of interest, and recuse yourself immediately if you believe your impartiality has been compromised.
The Review Process
Things to consider before agreeing to review a manuscript
Before you agree to review a manuscript, you should be certain that you have the necessary expertise and time to provide a critical evaluation of the article. Ask yourself whether:
- The article matches your expertise. Log into your JOLLAR account and read the manuscript's abstract to determine whether your field of expertise matches that of the manuscript.
- You are able to both complete the review on time and dedicate the appropriate amount of time to conducting a thorough review. A review should be completed within three weeks. If you do not think you can complete the review within this timeframe, please let the editor know. If possible, please also suggest an alternate reviewer. If you agree to review a manuscript, but later on find yourself unable to complete it on time, please contact the editor as soon as possible.
- You have any conflict of interest. Determine if there is any conflict of interest that may affect your impartiality. If there is, you should contact the editor and immediately recuse yourself. If you were unable to detect any conflict before agreeing to review the manuscript, but find one during the review, simply contact the editor and explain why you cannot continue.
Conducting the Review (JOLLAR’s review procedure)
JOLLAR uses an online submission and peer review system. When a reviewer is requested to review a paper submitted to JOLLAR, they will have a journal account created for them, through which they will be able to read the abstract and decide on whether to agree to review it.
If you have been requested to review a paper, simply log into your reviewer account, read the provided abstract, and indicate whether you agree to review it. If you decline to review the manuscript, please include the reason why, and if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer from a similar field.
To ensure the integrity of the peer-review process, all further correspondence will be through this system, with the reviewer being given access to the full manuscript and provided with a review page to fill out and submit. If you wish, you can also provide comments directly on the manuscript file, but be sure that all comments are made anonymously and focus on the content of the article, not its layout or formatting.
Your review should look at both the overall quality of the manuscript and the accuracy and precision of its details, with the former informed by the latter. Assess the following aspects:
- Is the manuscript within JOLLAR’s scope? How interesting and relevant will the article be to our readers?
- Adherenceto JOLLAR’s author guidelines. Does the manuscript adhere to the journal's guidelines?
- The noveltyof the research. If this is a research article, is it sufficiently novel and interesting? Does it add new knowledge? How original is the research?
- Appropriatenessof the title. Does the title accurately represent the content?
- Quality of the content. Does the article adhere to JOLLAR’s standards? Is the research question an important one? Does the manuscript help to expand or further current research in its respective field?
- Clarity of the content. How good is the English? Will JOLLAR’s readers be able to understand the arguments made by the author(s) without confusion? Is there a logical progression and evident organization in the article?
- If this is a research article, is its description of the methodology informative, clear, and concise? Is the methodology of the research precise and properly conducted? How appropriate is the approach or experimental design?
- The significance of the findings.What are the implications of the findings? How significantly will this manuscript contribute to the humanities?
- Appropriateness of tables, figures, boxes, and/or supplementary material.Is every figure, table, or box necessary and correctly described? Is the supplementary material appropriate for the content?
- Completeness of the data.If this is a research article, how complete are the data?
- The relevance of the discussion.Is the discussion relevant to the results and rest of the content? Have the authors appropriately discussed their results in the context of previous work?
- Appropriateness of citations/references. Are all citations accounted for? Is there an appropriate amount of citations for the content (neither too few nor too many)?
- Adherence to correct scientific nomenclature.Are technical terms used correctly?
In addition to the above criteria, you should also pay attention to whether the manuscript contains instances of plagiarism, improper referencing, re-publication, fraud, or other forms of deception. Things to look for:
- Observe whether a portion of the manuscript has been copied from another work without giving appropriate credit. For example, a text has been copied verbatim without a clear indication that it is a quote, the text has been copied but not cited—suggesting that these are the own words or ideas of the author(s)—or some portion of the text has been copied without the permission of the original author. If you find that a significant part of the manuscript has been plagiarized, please contact the section editor as soon as possible so we can take the appropriate actions.
- Missing, incorrect, or incomplete references.All text, figures, tables, data, ideas, or concepts that have been previously published should be cited. It is considered plagiarism for an author to present something as their own even though it is not, regardless of their intent.
- Re-publication.JOLLAR does not publish work that has already been published elsewhere. Please notify the section editor if you find an instance of a manuscript having been published previously (either partially or fully).
- It is often the case that an author will misread a source and unintentionally make an inaccurate claim. Nevertheless, any part of the manuscript that is found to be untrue should be highlighted as such. And, more crucially, any form of data manipulation or tampering should be brought to the section editor's attention immediately.
Publication ethics is not limited to these four items (you can read JOLLAR’s full publication ethics statement here). If you believe the author(s) have attempted to mislead readers, infringed upon a copyright or patent, or might jeopardize the integrity of the journal in any other way, please contact the section editor.
Submitting the review
The JOLLAR review form
Once you have gathered enough information to make a decision on the manuscript, log into your JOLLAR account to complete the review. At the minimum, you will be required to grade the manuscript based on the aforementioned criteria, as well as to summarize your major findings and give your overall impression of the article. Although it is only optional, we highly encourage you to also take the opportunity to comment on the manuscript in more detail, and provide specific suggestions that might improve any aspect of it.
If you have made specific comments in the manuscript file, remember to anonymize them to prevent the authors from being able to identify you.
Making good comments
It's important to ensure that all comments are constructive and intended to better the quality of the manuscript (or otherwise help the authors understand where they went wrong). Please reconsider making comments that fall out of this purview.
Follow good commenting practices. For example:
- Do not comment on the acceptability of the manuscript, and avoid suggesting revisions as conditions for acceptance.
- Provide detailed, unambiguous comments.
- Be respectful and positive. Your goal should be to help the author(s) improve their article, by providing constructive criticism and helpful suggestions. Consider how you would like your own manuscript to be reviewed. (Also note JOLLAR’s aforementioned policy on malicious commenting.)
- Highlight areas that need clarification or should be elaborated further by the authors.
- Make suggestions on how the authors can improve problematic passages. How might they improve the clarity of a given section?
- You are not required to edit the style or grammar of the manuscript, but any improvement to the clarity of the content is greatly appreciated.
- Highlight consistent instances of misspelled technical terms.
- Avoid making dogmatic statements. You should be able to back up your comments with proof or precedence in previous literature.
- Take care not to dismiss the manuscript, whether in its novelty, methodology, or findings.
Your final task as a reviewer will be to recommend that the manuscript is either; a) accepted as is, b) accepted with minor revisions, c) accepted with major revisions, or d) rejected. If the manuscript is rejected, you should explain your reasons why.
Regardless of what you recommend, your decision should be supported by the facts of the evaluation and backed with constructive criticism. As one of at least two reviewers, your recommendation may differ from that of your colleagues. Therefore, ensuring that you conduct a good critical review is important, as it enables JOLLAR’s editorial board to make an informed final decision on the manuscript. Also note that the final decision on the manuscript is made by the editorial board, taking into account ever reviewer’s recommendations, and your recommendation might not be reflected in this decision.