Focus and Scope

Wicara: Jurnal Sastra, Bahasa, dan Budaya berfokus pada publikasi artikel penelitian sastra, bahasa, dan budaya.
Fokus dan tujuan jurnal ini adalah menerbitkan tulisan analisis kritis dan teoritis terhadap segala objek penelitian kebahasaan, kesastraan, dan kebudayaan. Oleh karena itu, kami akan menerbitkan artikel orisinil yang berisi pemikiran kritis dalam ruang lingkup sastra, bahasa, dan budaya kontemporer. 

Adapun cakupan Jurnal Wicara meliputi:

• studi sastra interdisipliner; 
• sastra kontemporer; 
• studi sastra teoretik; 
• sastra anak; 
• linguistik; 
• linguistik terapan; 
• studi linguistik interdisipliner; 
• filologi; 
• sastra dan tradisi lisan; dan 
• kebudayaan

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process / Policy

The articles published in this journal, has been through a review process on substance and technical at least by 2 reviewers both double-blind.
Peer-review articles will be reviewed to see the suitability of page formats, images, tables, cites and reference lists as well as systematics article generation.

Review is done for 4-8 weeks. If desired, the reviewer may request to be reviewed again after the author revises his article.
The decision whether the article is accepted or not, fully in the authority of Editor in Chief based on recommendations from reviewers.

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.

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

Publication Ethics

Wicara: Jurnal Sastra, Bahasa,  dan Budaya is a peer-reviewed journal published by Faculty of Humanities, Diponegoro University. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewer­­­­­ and the publisher. 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 Wicara: Jurnal Sastra, Bahasa,  dan Budaya 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 editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society.

Faculty of Humanities, Diponegoro University as publisher of Wicara: Jurnal Sastra, Bahasa,  dan Budaya takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, Faculty of Humanities, Diponegoro University and Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.

Duties of Author

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
   If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
8. 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.
9. 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.

Duties of Editor

1. Publication Decisions
   Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. 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. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.
2. Review of Manuscripts
   Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. Editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
3. Fair Play
   The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.
4. Confidentiality
   The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable.
5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
   The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research without written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest.

Duties of Reviewer

1. Confidentiality
   Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor
2. Acknowledgment of Sources
   Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. 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. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
3. Standards of Objectivity
   Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.
4. 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. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
5. Promptness
   The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.

Plagiarism Policy

Wicara Editorial board recognizes 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 Wicara.
Wicara will use Turnitin's originality checking software as the tool in detecting similarities of texts in article manuscripts and the final version 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 re-submission.

Our Policy:
Papers must be original, never has been published, and not in pending publication elsewhere.
Any material taken verbatim from another source needs to be clearly identified as different from the present original text by
(1) indentation, (2) use of quotation marks, and (3) identification of the source.

Any text of an amount exceeding fair use standards (herein defined as more than two or three sentences or the equivalent thereof) or any graphic material reproduced from another source requires permission from the copyright holder and, if feasible, the original author(s) and also requires identification of the source; e.g., previous publication.

When plagiarism is identified, the Editor in Chief responsible for the review of this paper and will agree on measures according to the extent of plagiarism detected in the paper in agreement with the following guidelines:

Level of Plagiarism

• Minor Plagiarism
  A small sentence or short paragraph of another manuscript is plagiarized without any significant data or ideas 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 automatically 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 automatically rejected and the authors are forbidden to submit further articles to the journal.

CrossMark Applying on Wicara

Crossmark

Applying the CrossMark icon is a commitment by Wicara: Jurnal Sastra, Bahasa, dan Budaya to maintain the content published and alert readers to changes if and when they occur.

What is Crossmark?

CrossMark, a multi-publisher initiative from CrossRef, provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of a document. Jurnal Teknologi dan Sistem Komputer recognizes the importance of the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record to researchers and librarians and attaches the highest importance to maintaining trust in the authority of its electronic archive. Clicking on the CrossMark icon will inform the reader of the current status of a document and may also provide additional publication record information about the document.