Publication Ethics

ELTALL focuses on advancing scholarly discussions in the areas of English language teaching, applied linguistics, and literature, prioritizing contributions that promote intellectual growth, intercultural understanding, and the development of effective language education practices. It offers a platform for academic work that enriches theoretical and practical perspectives in the field through empirical research, conceptual analysis, and innovative pedagogical approaches. Employing qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research designs, the journal aims to provide comprehensive insights into language education and its role in addressing contemporary challenges in global communication and cultural exchange.

As a result, the ethical behavior of all parties involved in publishing in this journal has been clearly defined. This statement applies to the author(s), Editor-in-Chief (EIC), Associate Editors (AEs), Editorial Board, peer reviewers, and the Faculty of Language and Literature Education at Department of English Education, Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher Training, IAIN Ponorogo as the Publisher. This statement is based on the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

Publishing in the ELTALL Journal plays an essential role in fostering cohesive and widely accepted scholarly networks. The journal reflects the quality of the work of authors and their supporting institutions while promoting and exemplifying ethical and responsible academic practice. To uphold these standards, it is necessary to establish clear ethical expectations for all parties involved in the publishing process, including authors, journal editors, reviewers, publishers, and the academic community at large.

As the publisher of the ELTALL Journal at Department of English Education, Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher Training, IAIN Ponorogo acknowledges its ethical and professional responsibilities. The Faculty is committed to ensuring that editorial decisions remain free from the influence of financial relationships, personal interests, political or religious beliefs, or institutional affiliations. Furthermore, the Editorial Board actively collaborates with other journals and publishers to maintain high ethical standards and foster academic cooperation.

Publication Decisions

Editorial decisions in the ELTALL Journal are made by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) with support from the Associate Editors (AEs), who oversee specialized sections and manage the peer-review process to ensure that manuscripts meet the journal’s scope and standards. Assessments are based solely on the scholarly merit, originality, and relevance of the work to the journal’s focus and scope, as well as its value to researchers, educators, and readers. The EIC conducts an initial assessment for thematic and scholarly alignment before assigning an AE to manage the peer-review process. The AE appoints reviewers, coordinates communication between reviewers and authors, and provides a final recommendation to the EIC for the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.

Fair Play

Manuscripts are evaluated exclusively on their academic content, adherence to author guidelines, and alignment with the journal’s focus areas. Evaluation is free from any form of discrimination, including those based on ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, nationality, or political ideology.

Confidentiality

The Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors of the ELTALL Journal must not disclose any information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial advisors, and the publisher, and only for purposes related to publication.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the editors’ or reviewers’ own research without the author’s explicit written consent. Information or ideas obtained through handling the manuscript must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Peer Review Process

The peer review process in ELTALL follows a double-blind review system, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the process. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers to guarantee fairness, academic rigor, and alignment with the journal’s scope in English language teaching, applied linguistics, and literature studies.

The peer review process consists of the following stages:

  1. Manuscript Submission by Author
    Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system, ensuring that the format, structure, and thematic focus comply with the ELTALL Author Guidelines.

  2. Initial Editorial Assessment by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)
    The EIC conducts an initial screening to verify the manuscript’s thematic relevance, originality, and adherence to the journal’s scope. The EIC also checks for compliance with ethical and formatting standards. Based on this assessment, the EIC may reject the manuscript outright or assign it to an Associate Editor (AE) for further processing.

  3. Reviewer Appointment by Associate Editor (AE)
    The AE selects two or more reviewers based on their expertise in the relevant area of English Language Teaching, applied linguistics, or literature, and coordinates the peer-review process.

  4. Peer Review Process
    Reviewers assess the manuscript for its scholarly contribution, research methodology, clarity, and alignment with the journal’s academic standards. They provide constructive feedback and make recommendations: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.

  5. Revisions by Author
    Authors respond to reviewer feedback by revising the manuscript and submitting a detailed response letter explaining the changes made.

  6. Final Evaluation by AE and EIC
    The AE verifies the quality and completeness of the revisions before making a recommendation to the EIC. The EIC then makes the final decision on acceptance or rejection.

  7. Publication
    Accepted manuscripts move to the production stage, which includes copy-editing, layout formatting, language polishing, and DOI assignment before online publication.

Responsibilities for Retractions, Corrections, and Publishing Malpractices

1. Withdrawal Policy

Following the publication of an article, it may become necessary to implement changes for a variety of reasons, including minor factual errors, editorial mistakes, ethical considerations, or legal concerns. Any decision to amend, correct, or withdraw an article is undertaken with careful deliberation by the Editor and the ELTALL Editorial Team, in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.

All modifications are accompanied by a permanent post-publication notice linked to the original article, thereby ensuring transparency and integrity in scholarly communication. These changes are categorized as follows:

Addendum

An Addendum is issued when authors need to include significant information that was omitted from the original publication. While such additions do not alter the conclusions of the study, they provide important clarification, supplementary data, or extended discussion to enhance the completeness of the work.

Examples:

  • A study on language assessment practices omits a relevant policy update that significantly informs the interpretation of its findings; the authors request an addendum to incorporate this.

  • A paper on technology-enhanced language learning neglects to include an analysis of regional implementation variations, later provided in an addendum.

Addenda are published as revised versions of the article within the Open Journal Systems (OJS), with the original version retained for archival purposes.

Corrigendum

A Corrigendum is issued when authors identify minor factual or typographical errors that do not compromise the validity of the research. These corrections, generally initiated by the authors, address unintentional inaccuracies.

Examples:

  • An article misattributes the institutional affiliation of a contributor; a corrigendum is published to correct this.

  • A paper misstates a statistical figure (e.g., 20% instead of 2%) without altering the study’s conclusions.

Corrigenda are incorporated into updated versions of the article within OJS, with the original version preserved.

Erratum

An Erratum is issued to correct mistakes introduced during the editorial or production process that may affect the clarity or formatting of the article. Such errors are typically attributable to the publisher rather than the authors.

Examples:

  • A table in a research article appears with incorrect symbols due to formatting issues.

  • Essential references are omitted from a systematic review due to citation management errors during production.

Errata are included in updated versions of the article within OJS while maintaining access to the original version.

Retraction

A Retraction Notice is issued when an article contains significant errors, research misconduct, or ethical breaches that invalidate its conclusions. Retractions may be initiated by the journal, the authors, or affiliated institutions following an investigation.

Common reasons for retraction include:

  • Serious methodological flaws rendering the results unreliable.

  • Plagiarism.

  • Data fabrication or falsification.

  • Ethical violations, such as the absence of informed consent for participant research.

Retracted articles remain accessible but are clearly marked with a “Retracted” watermark. A formal notice outlines the reasons for retraction. If the retraction stems from honest error rather than misconduct, authors may be permitted to submit a corrected replacement version.

Removal

In rare and exceptional cases, an article may be removed entirely from the journal when it poses serious legal, ethical, or security risks. Unlike a retraction, a removed article is no longer accessible.

Reasons for removal include:

  • Copyright infringement.

  • Defamatory statements.

  • Breach of confidentiality or privacy.

In such cases, a Removal Notice is published in place of the article, detailing the reasons for withdrawal.

This Withdrawal Policy aligns with the CrossMark framework, COPE guidelines, and ELTALL’s commitment to ethical, transparent scholarly publishing.

2. Publishing Malpractice Policy

The ELTALL Journal enforces a strict policy against all forms of publishing malpractice.

  • Investigation: Allegations of misconduct such as plagiarism, data manipulation, or authorship disputes are investigated thoroughly by the Editorial Board.

  • Action: Depending on the severity, the journal may reject the manuscript, retract the published article, or report the matter to the relevant institution or authority.

  • Prevention: The journal employs plagiarism detection software (e.g., Turnitin) and implements rigorous peer review and authorship verification procedures to prevent misconduct.

3. CrossMark Policy

The ELTALL Journal implements the CrossMark system to guarantee the authenticity and currency of its published content. The CrossMark icon provides readers with the authoritative status of a document and alerts them to any subsequent updates or corrections.

Types of post-publication updates under CrossMark include:

  • Addendum: For the inclusion of substantial but previously omitted information that enhances the completeness of the article.

  • Corrigendum: For correcting minor factual or typographical errors that do not affect the study’s validity.

  • Erratum: For correcting publisher-introduced errors in figures, tables, references, or formatting.

  • Retraction: For addressing serious ethical violations or major scientific flaws. Retracted articles remain visible but marked clearly as “Retracted.”

  • Removal: For articles withdrawn entirely for legal or ethical reasons, with a notice explaining the withdrawal.

Readers are encouraged to report any suspected errors or ethical concerns to the Editor-in-Chief for prompt review and resolution.

Duties of Peer Reviewers

  1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
    Peer reviewers contribute to the editorial process by providing critical assessments that assist the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) in making informed decisions regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts. In some cases, reviewers’ comments may also guide authors in enhancing the quality, clarity, and scholarly contribution of their work.

  2. Promptness
    Reviewers who determine that they are not qualified to assess a manuscript, or who are unable to meet the review deadline, must promptly notify the Associate Editor (AE) so that an alternative reviewer may be assigned. Adherence to the review timeline is essential for ensuring the journal’s efficient publication schedule.

  3. Confidentiality
    All manuscripts under review must be treated as strictly confidential documents. They may not be shared, discussed, or disclosed to any party other than the editorial team, unless explicitly authorized by the EIC.

  4. Standards of Objectivity
    Reviews should be conducted impartially and free from personal bias. Personal criticism of authors is strictly prohibited. Reviewers are expected to provide clear, evidence-based evaluations, offering constructive suggestions that support scholarly improvement.

  5. Acknowledgment of Sources
    Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. They should ensure that claims, data, or arguments are supported by appropriate references. Any suspected plagiarism, significant similarity, or overlap with other published works must be reported to the AE.

  6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
    Confidential information or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for personal advantage. Reviewers must decline to evaluate manuscripts in which they have competing interests, whether personal, professional, or institutional, with any of the authors or affiliated organizations.

Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting Standards
    Authors presenting original research must provide an accurate, clear, and objective account of their work, including sufficient detail and references to allow replication. Fabricated, falsified, or deliberately misleading statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

  2. Originality and Plagiarism
    Manuscripts must represent the authors’ original work. Use of others’ ideas, words, or data must be appropriately cited or quoted. ELTALL employs plagiarism detection software (e.g., Turnitin) and requires a similarity index below 25% (excluding quotations and references).
    Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:

  • Using another author’s exact words without citation.

  • Presenting another’s ideas without proper acknowledgment.

  • Claiming authorship of work written by others.

Multiple, redundant, or simultaneous submissions to more than one journal are considered unethical and are prohibited. Authors found engaging in such practices may be subject to sanctions, including blacklisting.

  1. Acknowledgment of Sources
    Authors must appropriately acknowledge the contributions of others and cite works that have significantly influenced their research. The use of a reference management tool (e.g., Zotero, EndNote, Mendeley) is strongly encouraged to ensure proper citation formatting.

  2. Authorship Criteria
    Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the research. All co-authors must have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and consented to its submission. Contributors who do not meet authorship criteria should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section.

  3. Authorship Responsibilities
    ELTALL follows the authorship criteria outlined by COPE guidelines. All authors are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their contributions. Disputes regarding authorship are referred to the relevant institution and are not adjudicated by the journal. Any changes in authorship after submission require written consent from all listed authors.

  4. Author Contributions
    Author contribution statements following the CRediT taxonomy are encouraged for transparency. These statements, included in the Acknowledgments section, should clearly describe each author’s role (e.g., conceptualization, methodology, data curation, writing – original draft, writing – review & editing).

  5. Corresponding Author
    The corresponding author serves as the primary liaison between the authors and the journal, ensuring compliance with editorial policies and facilitating communication during the review, revision, and publication process. The corresponding author must verify that all authors have reviewed and approved the manuscript prior to submission.

  6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
    All authors must disclose any financial or personal relationships that could influence the interpretation or presentation of their work. Sources of funding and any potential conflicts of interest must be clearly stated in the manuscript.