Publication Ethics

The Ethics of Publication of Lexeme follows COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. 

Publication decisions
The editors of Lexeme are responsible for whether the articles submitted to the journal should be published or not. The editors’ decisions are based on the Lexeme editorial board's policies and constrained by such legal requirements against libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may discuss with other editors or reviewers to make a publication decision.

Fair Play
At any time, an editor evaluates 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 editors 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Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in deciding the manuscript in regard of editors’ interest.

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions. The editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness
Reviewers who feel unqualified to review the manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves 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. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. The relevant citation should accompany any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported. 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.

Review Process
Reviewers independently review every manuscript submitted to Lexeme in the form of a "double-blind review". The decision for publication, amendment, or rejection is based upon their reports/recommendations. In certain cases, the editor may submit an article for review to another, the third reviewer, before making a decision, if necessary.

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
If applicable, 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, 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, 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.

Acknowledgment 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 others 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 in the paper. 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 conflicts 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. When authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, they must promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Fundamental errors in Published Works
When authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the authors’ obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
https://openjournal.unpam.ac.id/index.php/LJLAL/Publication_Ethics
openjournal.unpam.ac.id
CC-MAIN-2024-33
20923
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:RDOLBF7RQG2T6EIIRQ73LAVXNUKPBVJH
<urn:uuid:bfc6d1fc-ecd4-4108-aee1-fe211b1a0cbb>
2024-08-10T14:22:49Z
27.50.17.2
text/html
sha1:T3Y3QNE2SCF4B5MR6T67P6MAKR3BN3Y4
<urn:uuid:2b057323-e29d-4135-a7aa-52e6f7e464a0>
https://openjournal.unpam.ac.id/index.php/LJLAL/Publication_Ethics
response
<urn:uuid:7a8bbc67-dda7-445b-8962-2512e0649562>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-33
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-15
software: Apache Nutch 1.20 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/