Editorial Policies

 

EDITORIAL POLICIES

 

Focus and Scope

Majesty Journal of English Studies (Majesty). The main focus of the Journal is on research conducted in language education, learning and teaching. We are particularly interested in research papers on L2 education (especially EFL/ESL), in public and private contexts, in natural and classroom settings and at various levels including school level, university level, institutional level, etc. The Journal welcomes papers on Education, Teaching and Learning of any component of language, including skills and sub-skills, as well as teaching/learning of translation, literature, etc. Research on the use of new technologies for language education, teaching/learning is also considered appropriate for the Journal. MAJESTY’s focus is on research on language education and teaching, and papers that do not report research findings on language teaching/learning will not be considered. Recent papers by experts in the field are welcome as long as explicit implications are drawn to support language teaching and learning. Reviews of recently published books on language education are also welcome for publication.

The journal publishes research papers in the all the fields of education, language education, such as:

1. Grammar Analysis
2. Applied Linguistics
3. Language Teaching
4. Discourse Analysis
5. Language Development
6. Decision and Information System
7. Teacher Professional Development
8. Education Technology
9. Educational leadership and management
10. Digital Literacy
11. Online and Distance Learning; Blended Learning;
12. Curriculum Development and assessment design;
13. Language Assessment Literacy
14. Cultural challenges/demands/expectations of transnational teachers
15. Other recent relevant topics

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section Policies

Article

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Book Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peer Review Process

The review process of an article submitted to Majesty Journal of English Studies (Majesty) is expected to take normally one (1) up to two-and-a-half (2.5) months but it may take longer depending on the number of papers currently being reviewed. The following are the four main steps of the review process.

  1. Every article submitted to Majesty Journal of English Studies (Majesty) is firstly checked for article component completeness (for example, at least 25 references), the fulfilment of the focus and scope of LLT Journal, and similarity/plagiarism checking (maximum 20% is acceptable). 
  2. The assigned (section) editor will invite reviewers to give proper assessment and judgement of the submitted manuscript.
  3. The result of the review will be communicated to the editor for onward transmission to the author(s). In a review result report, a reviewer recomments one of the following four: a. Accept Submission, b. Revisions Required, c. Resubmit for Review or d. Decline Submission.
  4. If required, the author(s) will revise the manuscript in light of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions and resubmit the manuscript within two to six weeks. When the manuscript is finally accepted for publication, the editor will schedule the publication and inform the author(s) of the particular number and volume of the journal in which the article will be published. 

Each paper will go through a double-blind review process.

Authors are warmly welcome to submit original and unpublished papers anytime, all year round.

  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Publication Frequency

Majesty Journal of English Studies (Majesty) published twice a year, on February and July

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Open Access Policy

Majesty Journal of English Studies (Majesty) is an open access journal, meaning that all content is freely available at no cost to users or their institutions. Users are permitted to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full text of articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without prior permission from the publisher or authors. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 and Publication Malpractice Statement

This statement clarifies ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in our journals, including the authors, the editors, the peer-reviewers and the publisher (Universitas Muhammadiyah Enrekang). 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 Majesty Journal 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 authors, the journal editors, the peer reviewers, the publisher and the society.  


Publication decisions
The editors of Majesty Journal are 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.

Fair play
An editor at any time evaluate 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 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 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 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 chemicals, 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.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AI Policy & Declaration of Generatif AI

 

AI Policy for the Maspul Journal of English Studies (Majesty)

1. Scope and Purpose

This policy governs the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools and technologies in the research, writing, review, and editorial processes for articles submitted to Majesty Journal. It aims to maintain academic integrity, ensure transparency, and promote ethical practices in scholarly communication. As AI tools become increasingly integral to academic work, this policy provides a framework to address their responsible use, ensuring that the standards of scholarly excellence and integrity are upheld. This policy will be updated periodically to reflect advancements in AI technologies and their implications for academic publishing.

2. Guidelines for Authors

2.1. Use of AI in Research

  • Authors are permitted to use AI tools for data analysis, simulation, or other research purposes, provided the tools are explicitly mentioned in the methodology section of the manuscript.
  • The limitations, assumptions, and potential biases of the AI tools must be acknowledged and discussed to ensure transparency and reproducibility of the research findings.

2.2. Use of AI in Writing

  • Authors must disclose any use of AI in drafting, editing, or proofreading the manuscript. This includes tools such as ChatGPT, Grammarly, DeepL, or similar platforms.
  • AI tools should not be used as a substitute for the authors’ intellectual contributions. Authors are responsible for ensuring the accuracy and originality of the manuscript content.
  • AI-generated content must be explicitly reviewed, validated, and contextualised by the authors.

2.3. Authorship and AI

  • AI systems cannot be credited as authors under any circumstances. Authorship is reserved for individuals who have made substantial intellectual contributions to the research and manuscript preparation.
  • Authors are responsible for all aspects of the manuscript, including the portions where AI tools were utilized.

2.4. Ethical Considerations

  • Authors must ensure that the use of AI does not violate ethical standards, such as data privacy, informed consent, or institutional research ethics guidelines.
  • AI tools must not be used to fabricate, falsify, or manipulate data. Any breach of these principles will be treated as research misconduct.

2.5. Referencing AI-Generated Texts

  • If AI tools such as ChatGPT or others are used to generate text or assist in writing, their contributions must be explicitly cited in both the manuscript and the references section.
  • The following format is recommended for citing AI-generated texts:

APA Style:
OpenAI. (Year). ChatGPT (Version). Retrieved from website [Provide the date of access as well].

3. Guidelines for Reviewers

3.1. Use of AI in Peer Review

  • Reviewers may use AI tools for auxiliary tasks such as grammar checking or summarisation, but not for forming critical evaluations or recommendations regarding the manuscript.
  • Any use of AI in the review process must be disclosed to the editorial team to ensure transparency.

3.2. Responsibilities and Human Oversight

  • The peer review process must remain a human-led activity. AI tools can assist but must not replace the reviewer’s intellectual judgment and expertise.
  • Reviewers are encouraged to exercise caution when using AI tools, ensuring that their evaluations are accurate and unbiased.

4. Guidelines for Editors

4.1. AI-Assisted Editorial Processes

  • Editors may use AI tools for non-decisional tasks, such as plagiarism detection, grammar checking, or workflow management, to enhance efficiency and accuracy.
  • Decisions regarding manuscript acceptance, rejection, or revision must remain the sole responsibility of human editors.

4.2. Disclosure and Transparency

  • The editorial team will disclose any significant use of AI tools during the editorial process to ensure accountability and trust.

5. Transparency and Disclosure

All stakeholders (authors, reviewers, and editors) must disclose the use of AI tools in their respective roles. This includes the type of AI tool used, the purpose of its use, and the extent of its influence on the research or editorial process.

Non-disclosure of significant AI usage will be treated as a violation of ethical standards and may result in corrective measures, including manuscript rejection, retraction of published articles, or removal from reviewer or editorial roles.

6. Integrity and Accountability

The journal reserves the right to:

  • Request detailed explanations or evidence regarding the use of AI tools in any aspect of the manuscript or review process.
  • Conduct investigations and take appropriate corrective actions in cases of undisclosed or unethical AI use.
  • Retract published articles where AI misuse or misrepresentation is discovered post-publication.

7. Continuous Review

This policy will be periodically reviewed and updated to align with evolving AI technologies and their implications for academic publishing. Feedback from stakeholders is encouraged to refine and improve the policy over time.

 

---------------------

Declaration of generative AI in scientific writing

 

Authors must declare the use of generative AI in scientific writing upon submission of the paper. The following guidance refers only to the writing process, and not to the use of AI tools to analyse and draw insights from data as part of the research process:

  • Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies should only be used in the writing process to improve the readability and language of the manuscript.

  • The technology must be applied with human oversight and control and authors should carefully review and edit the result, as AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete or biased. Authors are ultimately responsible and accountable for the contents of the work.

  • Authors must not list or cite AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author on the manuscript since authorship implies responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed to and performed by humans.

The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in scientific writing must be declared by adding a statement at the end of the manuscript when the paper is first submitted. The statement will appear in the published work and should be placed in a new section before the references list. An example:

  • Title of new section: Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process.

  • Statement: During the preparation of this work the author(s) used [NAME TOOL / SERVICE] in order to [REASON]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the published article.

The declaration does not apply to the use of basic tools, such as tools used to check grammar, spelling and references. If you have nothing to disclose, you do not need to add a statement.

Please read Elsevier’s author policy on the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies, which can be found in our GenAI Policies for journals.

Please note: to protect authors’ rights and the confidentiality of their research, this journal does not currently allow the use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies such as ChatGPT or similar services by reviewers or editors in the peer review and manuscript evaluation process, as is stated in our GenAI Policies for journals. We are actively evaluating compliant AI tools and may revise this policy in the future.

 

 

View Majesty Journal Stats


This work is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.