About the Journal

Focus and Scope

Japanese Research on Linguistics, Literature, and Culture focuses on the publication of articles in the areas of:

Japanese linguistics;
Japanese literature:
Japanese Language Education;
Japanese history;
and Japanese studies or cultural studies.

Only original research articles are accepted.

Peer Review Process

Japanese Research on Linguistics, Literature, and Culture aims to publish academic articles that uncover new depths in the study of Japanese. These articles should be able to contribute to and advance our current understanding of Japanese linguistics, literature, and culture, with a sound scientific basis. To ensure this, we employ a double-blind review, which means that both the reviewers' and authors' identities are concealed from each other throughtout the review process.

More specifically, our editorial process is as follows:

Initial screening. All submissions are initially screened by the Editor-in-Chief for their conformity to Japanese Research on Linguistics, Literature, and Culture's scope and basic submission requirements, and checked for plagiarism. Manuscripts that fail to abide by our ethical standards are immediately rejected, as are manuscripts that do not fit within the journal's scope.
Reviewer assignment. Manuscripts that passed the initial screening are then handed over to a section editor, who will select at least two relevant reviewers and initiate the peer review process.
Peer review. During this stage, a reviewer will asess the content of the manuscript and provide their recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.
First decision. Once both (or more) reviewers have submitted their recommendations, the manuscript is either rejected, asked for revisions (minor or major), or accepted as is. If it is accepted, the manuscript is returned to the submitting author for proofreading. The final decision to accept the manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the recommendation of the section editor and following approval by the editorial board.
Revision. A manuscript that requires revisions is returned to the submitting author, who will have up to four weeks to revise the manuscript. Once the revision is submitted, it is once again assessed by the section editor to determine whether the changes are adequate and appropriate, as well as whether the author(s) sufficiently responded to the reviewers' comments and suggestions. If the revisions are deemed to be inadequate, this step is repeated (the manuscript is returned to the submitting author once more for further revision).
Final decision. Finally, the revised manuscript is either accepted or rejected, depending on whether the section editor has found the manuscript to have been improved to a level worthy of publication. If the author(s) are unable to make the required changes or have done so to a degree below Japanese Research on Linguistics, Literature, and Culture's standards, the manuscript is rejected.
Language editing. Once the manuscript is accepted, it is returned to the submitting author for final editing of its language and content; these are changes that improve the readability of the article without changing the substance of the content. Japanese Research on Linguistics, Literature, and Culture requires authors to return the manuscript with proof that changes have been made, which the editorial board will review before ultimately greenlighting the manuscript for publication.
Typesetting. Once greenlit, the manuscript is handed over to the journal's type setter. The final version of the article, as it will appear in Japanese Research on Linguistics, Literature, and Culture, is returned to the submitting author for proofreading and final approval.
Publication. Congratulations! The published article will appear in the latest issue of Japanese Research on Linguistics, Literature, and Culture.

Publication Frequency

Japanese Research on Linguistics, Literature, and Culture is published in May and November.

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.

Repository Archive

Universitas Dian Nuswantoro repository
National Library (Indonesia One Search)
Garuda (Digital Reference Garba of the Ministry of Research and Technology / National Agency for Research and Technology)
Mendeley
Open AIRE
Zenodo

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Japanese Research on Linguistics, Literature, and Culture journal follows the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Core Practices for Journal Publishers.

Duties and Responsibilities of Editors

Fair play and editorial independence

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively based on their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and their relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. The policies of governments or other agencies outside the journal do not determine decisions to edit and publish. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.

Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff will 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

Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the author’s explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors due to handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.

Publication decisions

The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer review by at least two reviewers who are experts in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

Editors (in conjunction with the publisher and/or society) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised about a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if discovered years after publication. Japanese Research on Linguistics, Literature, and Culture editors follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If, on the investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note as may be relevant will be published in the journal.

Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is essential to formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific endeavor. Japanese Research on Linguistics, Literature, and Culture shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them to improve the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Acknowledgment of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement that is an observation, derivation, or argument reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other (published or unpublished) they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Duties and Responsibilities of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective, and comprehensive, while editorial 'opinion' or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review. They should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data centre), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.

Originality and plagiarism

Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as the author's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Multiple, duplicate, redundant, or concurrent submission/publication

Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable.

The publication of some kinds of articles (such as clinical guidelines, and translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided that certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Authorship of the manuscript

Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named as been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list and verify that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Authors should—at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number, if any).

Acknowledgement of sources

Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from the conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them; the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.

Peer review

Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, proof of ethics approval, patient consent, and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and promptly, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.

Fundamental errors in published works

When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the author’s obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.

Duties and Responsibilities of the Publisher

Handling of unethical publishing behaviour

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification, or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

Access to journal content

The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our own digital archive.

Citation Etiquette

Plagiarism is understood as the complete or partial imitation of the work of another author without citing that work’s source and author. Short passages from another work may be quoted. The quote must, however, be identified and its source cited.

Source citation: Cite all of your sources fully and verifiably, such that anyone can check them.
Your own work: Differentiate clearly between your own work and that of others: always name the author(s) of work which is not your own. This applies to texts, computer codes, tables, graphics and data, even if they come from the World Wide Web.
Word-for-word quotes: Place borrowed text (both sentences and concepts) in inverted commas.
Analogous quotes (paraphrases): If you have rendered text in your own words or summarised it, give its source in parentheses.
Secondary sources: Identify a citation as a secondary source if you have taken it from another author without looking at the original source yourself.
Bibliography: At the end of your paper list all of the sources and ‘intellectual mentors’ you have used.
General knowledge: Anything which may be regarded as general or basic knowledge does not require a source citation. If the basic ideas are taken from another author, e.g. from a textbook, however, the source must be cited.

You may not:

use the exact words of or ideas from another author’s intellectual property (text, ideas, structure, etc.) without citing the source clearly.
use text from the internet without citing the www. address and the date you accessed it.
re-use your own written texts or parts of them in different course papers or performance assessments without explicitly identifying them as such.
translate and use a foreign-language text without citing its source.
submit work under your own name which has been written for you by someone else (a ‘ghost writer’).
use an extract from another author’s work, paraphrase it and indeed cite the source but somewhere other than in the context of that extract (for example, the (in practice, plagiarised) source is hidden in a footnote at the end of a paper).

(Adapted from the ‘Notice on dealing with plagiarism’ issued on 30 April 2007 by the Teaching Committee of the University of Zurich)