Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS RESEARCH is a peer-reviewed journal that aims to be a leading platform and an authoritative source of information. It publishes original research papers, review articles, and case studies focusing on Pragmatics, Pragma-linguistics, Discourse Analysis, Sociolinguistics, and Socio-pragmatics within the Indonesian socio-cultural and political context. The journal is issued every February, July, and October, and only publishes manuscripts that have not been published elsewhere or are not under consideration elsewhere.

The following statement outlines the ethical responsibilities of all parties involved in the publishing process: authors, editors, and reviewers.

1. Duties of Authors

1.1 Reporting Standards

Authors should present an accurate account of their original research and an objective discussion of its significance. Results must be reported honestly without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation. Manuscripts should include sufficient detail and references to allow replication. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

1.2 Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must ensure their work is entirely original. The manuscript should not be submitted to multiple publications simultaneously. All sources, including authors’ previous work, must be properly cited, and direct quotations must be enclosed in quotation marks.

1.3 Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications

Authors must not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. Redundant or overlapping publications are unethical. When multiple papers arise from a single project, they must be clearly identified, and the primary publication should be referenced.

1.4 Acknowledgment of Sources

All data sources and influences must be appropriately acknowledged. Proper credit must always be given to others’ work.

1.5 Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should accurately reflect contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the research. Only those who made significant contributions should be listed as authors, while others should be acknowledged. All listed authors must approve the final version and agree to its submission.

1.6 AI-Assisted Writing Policy

Authors may use Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Generative AI (GenAI) tools only as supportive aids to improve language quality, grammar, structure, or translation — not for generating or altering core scientific content (data, results, analysis, or conclusions).

Any use of AI must be disclosed (e.g., in Acknowledgments or Methods).
AI tools cannot be listed as co-authors.
Authors retain full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and ethical integrity of the manuscript.
This policy aligns with Elsevier’s Generative AI Policy and COPE’s ethical recommendations.

1.7 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose any financial or personal conflicts of interest that could affect their results or interpretation. All sources of financial support must be identified.

1.8 Fundamental Errors in Published Works

If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy, they must promptly notify the editor and cooperate in retracting or correcting the paper.

1.9 Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

Authors must clearly identify any use of hazardous materials, procedures, or human/animal subjects and provide appropriate ethical approvals.

2. Duties of Editors

2.1 Publication Decisions

Editors decide which manuscripts to publish based on scholarly merit and relevance. They may consult reviewers and the editorial board and must follow journal policies and legal requirements (e.g., libel, copyright, plagiarism). Editors are responsible for maintaining publication integrity.

2.2 Review of Manuscripts

Editors must ensure each submission is initially evaluated for originality and that peer review is conducted fairly, using qualified reviewers without conflicts of interest.

2.3 AI-Assisted Editing Policy

Editors may use AI tools only for administrative or technical support (e.g., plagiarism checking, format verification, or citation consistency).

AI must not be used to evaluate, summarize, or decide on manuscripts.
No part of any submission or correspondence may be uploaded into AI systems.
All AI use must be supervised and documented internally.
Final editorial decisions rest solely with human editors.
(See: Elsevier – Generative AI Policies for Journals, Editors Section.)

2.4 Fair Play

Editors must evaluate manuscripts solely for intellectual content, without bias regarding gender, race, religion, or citizenship. Editorial independence and integrity must always be upheld.

2.5 Confidentiality

Editors must protect the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts, communications, and personal data, ensuring informed consent when applicable.

2.6 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Editors must not use unpublished material from submissions in their own research without written consent and must avoid handling papers where conflicts of interest exist.

3. Duties of Reviewers

3.1 Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shared or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

3.2 AI-Assisted Review Policy

Reviewers may use AI tools only as minor aids for technical tasks (e.g., checking grammar or citation format), but not for evaluation, summarization, or judgment of manuscripts.

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or review reports into AI systems.
The review process must remain fully human-driven and confidential.
(See: Elsevier – Generative AI Policies for Journals, Reviewers Section.)

3.3 Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers should ensure proper citation of relevant literature. They must notify the editor of any ethical concerns, substantial overlap, or suspected misconduct but must not investigate independently.

3.4 Standards of Objectivity

Reviews must be conducted objectively, with clear arguments and constructive feedback. Reviewers should distinguish between essential revisions and optional improvements.

3.5 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must not use privileged information for personal gain and should avoid reviewing manuscripts where conflicts of interest exist. In double-blind reviews, if a reviewer suspects the author’s identity and a conflict arises, they should inform the editor.