Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The aim of this Journal is to promote a principled approach to research on language teaching and learning-related concerns by encouraging inquiry into the relationship between theoretical and practical studies. The journal welcomes contributions in the areas of:

  • English as a lingua franca
  • Teaching English as a second and foreign language;
  • English language teaching and learning;
  • English language teaching teachers’ training and education;
  • English language testing and assessment;
  • Curriculum and development;
  • Linguistics;
  • Translation

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

J-REaLL activates a peer review procedure and promotes double-blind reviewing in which the reviewers do not see the authors' identity. The acceptance or rejection of manuscripts will be decided by the editorial boards based on the review results completed by the reviewers. There are no communications between authors and editors concerning with the rejection decision. Before going to review procedure, all manuscripts will be checked that they are free from plagiarism practice using "Turnitin" software. If there is an indication of plagiarism, the manuscript will automatically be rejected. Authors whose papers are rejected will be sent an e-mail with the reasons of the rejection. Submissions which meet the requirements of the journal are reviewed by two experienced reviewers in the field of ELT and are rated using the following criteria.

  • The title is appropriate, concise, and clear.
  • Abstract well represents the article.
  • The writer’s aims are clear and well justified.
  • The writer uses appropriate references.
  • The references are adequate.
  • All parts are complete and relevant.
  • The article is of appropriate length.
  • All the statements are clear.
  • Diagrams, figures, illustrations are clear and functional.
  • The article contributes to the advancement of theories and/ or practices in the field.

 

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

Publication Ethics Statement

J-REaLL is a peer-reviewed international journal. This statement clarifies ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the editor in chief, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewer­­­­­ and the publisher (Universitas Islam Malang). This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed J-REaLL 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 important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editors, the peer reviewers, the publisher, and the society. 

Duties of Editors

Fair play and editorial independence

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content. 

Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff will 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

Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.

Publication decisions

The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are experts in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific endeavor. AP-SMART shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Acknowledgment of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation, or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

 

Fair play

An editor evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

The editors and the editorial staff will 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 will not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions 

Peer review assists the editor 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/herself from the review process.

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.

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 had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant 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. 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

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 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 works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has 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 behaviour 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 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.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects 

If the work involves human, animals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

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.

 

Screening for Plagiarism

J-REaLL recognizes that plagiarism is not acceptable for all author and therefore establishes the following policy stating specific actions (penalties) when plagiarism is identified by J-REaLL software detection in an article that is submitted for publication.
 
Plagiarism is copying another person’s text or ideas and passing the copied material as your own work. You must both delineate (i.e., separate and identify) the copied text from your text and give credit to (i.e., cite the source) the source of the copied text to avoid accusations of plagiarism.  Plagiarism is considered fraud and has potentially harsh consequences including loss of job, loss of reputation, and the assignation of reduced or failing grade in a course."

This definition of plagiarism applies for copied text and ideas:
 1. Regardless of the source of the copied text or idea.
 2. Regardless of whether the author(s) of the text or idea which you have copied actually copied that  text or idea from another source.
 3. Regardless of whether or not the authorship of the text or idea which you copy is known
 4. Regardless of the nature of your text (journal paper/article, web page, book chapter, paper submitted for a college course, etc) into which you copy the text or idea
 5. Regardless of whether or not the author of the source of the copied material gives permission for the material to be copied; and
 6.  Regardless of whether you are or are not the author of the source of the copied text or idea (self-plagiarism).
 
When plagiarism is identified by the Plagiarism Checker  software,  the Editorial Board responsible for the review of this paper and will agree on measures according to the extent of plagiarism detected in the article in agreement with the following guidelines:
 
Minor Plagiarism
A small sentence or short paragraph of another manuscript is plagiarized without any significant data or idea taken from the other papers or publications.
Punishment: A warning is given to the authors and a request to change the manuscript and properly cite the original sources.
 
Intermediate Plagiarism
A significant data, paragraph, or sentence of an article is plagiarized without proper citation to the original source.
Punishment: The submitted article is automatic rejected.
 
Severe Plagiarism
A large portion of an article is plagiarized that involves many aspects such as reproducing original results (data, formulation, equation, law, statement, etc.), ideas, and methods presented in other publications.
Punishment: The paper is automatic rejected and the authors are forbidden to submit further articles to the journal.