ECJ

Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

AIM AND SCOPE

Aim

English Community Journal (ECJ) is a peer-reviewed, open-access scholarly journal published by the English Education Study Program, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Palembang, Indonesia.

The journal aims to advance scholarly knowledge, research, and professional practice in English Language Education, Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, and Literature and Cultural Studies. ECJ provides an academic platform for researchers, lecturers, teachers, and practitioners to disseminate original research findings, critical perspectives, and scholarly contributions relevant to English language teaching, learning, communication, and literary and cultural studies.

Scope

English Community Journal welcomes original research articles and scholarly review articles within the following areas:

1. English Language Education

English language teaching and learning, teaching methodologies, language skills development, curriculum and instructional materials development, language assessment, educational technology, English for Specific Purposes (ESP), English for Academic Purposes (EAP), and English language teacher professional development.

2. Linguistics and Applied Linguistics

Phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, discourse analysis, contrastive linguistics, translation and interpreting, and intercultural communication relevant to English language use, learning, and communication.

3. Literature and Cultural Studies

English literature, literary analysis and criticism, comparative literature, literary theory, cultural representation, gender, identity, ideology, and interdisciplinary literary and cultural studies relevant to English language and literature.

Manuscripts submitted to ECJ should demonstrate clear scholarly relevance to at least one of these areas and provide original findings, critical analysis, or meaningful theoretical or practical contributions to the field.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review Article

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

English Community Journal (ECJ)

English Community Journal (ECJ) implements a blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and academic integrity of submitted manuscripts. All manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before being considered for external peer review.

Manuscripts that satisfy the journal's preliminary requirements are normally evaluated by at least two qualified reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the submitted research.

The journal is committed to maintaining an independent, transparent, fair, and rigorous review process. A Letter of Acceptance (LoA) is issued only after a manuscript has successfully completed the required editorial and peer-review procedures and received a final acceptance decision.

The review process is guided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, emphasizing confidentiality, impartiality, constructive evaluation, accountability, and professional responsibility.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo preliminary screening by the editorial team before being assigned to reviewers.

The initial assessment considers:

  • Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.

  • Compliance with the Author Guidelines and official manuscript template.

  • Originality, novelty, and potential scholarly contribution.

  • Clarity of research objectives and questions.

  • Appropriateness of the research design or analytical approach.

  • Quality and relevance of scholarly references.

  • Compliance with research and publication ethics.

  • Potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, or inappropriate textual overlap.

Similarity-checking tools may be used to support the editorial assessment. However, a similarity percentage alone does not establish plagiarism. Editors consider the nature, extent, context, and attribution of overlapping material.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet minimum academic standards, or demonstrate serious ethical concerns may be rejected without external peer review (desk rejection).

Authors may also be requested to revise technical or formatting deficiencies before the manuscript proceeds to the review stage.

2. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to qualified reviewers according to their academic expertise, research experience, methodological competence, and relevance to the manuscript.

Reviewer selection considers:

  • Expertise in English Language Education, Linguistics, Applied Linguistics, Literature, or Cultural Studies.

  • Relevant research and publication experience.

  • Competence in evaluating the research methodology.

  • Independence and absence of significant conflicts of interest.

  • Availability to complete a constructive and timely review.

Additional reviewers may be appointed when specialized methodological or disciplinary expertise is required.

Reviewers must inform the editor of potential conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethical Conduct

Reviewers are expected to uphold professional and ethical standards throughout the review process.

3.1. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, unpublished findings, and editorial communications must be treated as confidential.

Reviewers must not share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals or disclose unpublished information obtained during the review process.

Confidential manuscripts must not be uploaded to external artificial intelligence systems without editorial authorization and appropriate confidentiality safeguards.

3.2. Objectivity and Constructive Assessment

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and constructively.

Reviews should:

  • Focus on scientific quality and academic contribution.

  • Provide evidence-based comments and recommendations.

  • Identify methodological weaknesses and limitations.

  • Offer constructive suggestions for improvement.

  • Avoid personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, and unsupported allegations.

3.3. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose relationships or interests that could compromise their impartiality, including personal, institutional, financial, professional, or collaborative relationships with the authors.

Reviewers with significant conflicts of interest should decline the assignment or seek editorial guidance.

3.4. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete their assessments within the agreed review period.

When additional time is required, reviewers should promptly notify the editorial team.

3.5. Reporting Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should confidentially inform the editor of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, falsification, unethical research practices, or other concerns affecting research integrity.

Reviewers must not independently investigate allegations or publicly accuse authors.

3.6. Responsible Citation Recommendations

Recommendations for additional references must serve a legitimate scholarly purpose.

Reviewers must not request unnecessary citations to their own publications, associated researchers, or particular journals merely to increase citation counts.

4. Peer-Review Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to the type of article, research objectives, methodological approach, and relevant academic discipline.

The evaluation generally includes:

  • Originality, novelty, and significance of the research.

  • Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.

  • Clarity of research objectives, questions, or hypotheses.

  • Adequacy of theoretical and conceptual foundations.

  • Appropriateness of research methods and analytical procedures.

  • Quality of instruments, data collection, and supporting evidence.

  • Accuracy and transparency of data analysis.

  • Consistency between findings, discussion, and conclusions.

  • Contribution to existing knowledge and previous research.

  • Quality, relevance, and currency of references.

  • Compliance with research and publication ethics.

  • Clarity, coherence, and academic language.

4.1. Quantitative Research

Reviewers examine the appropriateness of research design, sampling procedures, measurement instruments, validity and reliability evidence, statistical analyses, interpretation of findings, and the extent to which the conclusions are supported by the data.

4.2. Qualitative Research

Reviewers evaluate methodological coherence, participant or source selection, data collection procedures, analytical transparency, reflexivity, trustworthiness, and the relationship between evidence and interpretation.

4.3. Mixed-Methods Research

Reviewers assess the quality of quantitative and qualitative components and the integration of their findings in addressing the research objectives.

4.4. Linguistic and Literary Studies

Reviewers evaluate theoretical relevance, analytical frameworks, selection of linguistic or literary data, interpretative rigor, contextual understanding, and contributions to English language, linguistic, literary, or cultural scholarship.

4.5. Review Articles

Review articles are evaluated according to the clarity of their objectives, appropriateness of literature selection, transparency of review procedures, critical synthesis, theoretical contribution, and identification of research gaps.

Systematic reviews should provide sufficiently transparent search, screening, eligibility, and synthesis procedures.

5. Editorial Decisions and Revision

Following consideration of reviewer reports, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  1. Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to any necessary editorial or production requirements.

  2. Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited improvements that do not substantially affect its research design, findings, or principal arguments.

  3. Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial improvements involving methodology, analysis, theoretical discussion, presentation, or interpretation.

  4. Decline Submission: The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic or ethical standards or cannot be brought to an acceptable standard through reasonable revision.

Authors receiving revision requests must submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a point-by-point response explaining how the reviewer and editorial comments have been addressed.

Where authors disagree with particular recommendations, they should provide a reasoned academic explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be evaluated by the handling editor, returned to the original reviewers, or referred to additional reviewers when necessary.

Multiple rounds of revision may be required. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision after considering the reviewers' evaluations, editorial recommendations, manuscript quality, and relevant journal policies.

6. Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editorial decisions must be based on academic merit, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's scope.

Decisions must not be influenced by publication fees, institutional pressure, commercial interests, or personal relationships.

Editors must withdraw from handling manuscripts when a significant conflict of interest exists.

Manuscripts submitted by members of the editorial board must undergo the same academic and ethical assessment as other submissions. An independent editor should manage the review and decision-making process.

7. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a written explanation through the journal's official communication channels.

Appeals should identify factual errors, procedural concerns, or substantial academic grounds for reconsideration.

Where feasible, appeals should be evaluated by an editor who was not involved in the original decision.

Complaints relating to reviewer conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, or procedural fairness will be examined according to the journal's Publication Ethics policy.

An appeal does not automatically result in the acceptance of a manuscript.

8. Publication Ethics and COPE Guidance

English Community Journal is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, confidential, and accountable peer-review process.

The journal's review principles are informed by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, particularly regarding confidentiality, impartiality, timely evaluation, competing interests, constructive criticism, and professional accountability.

Reference

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2017). COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (Version 2). https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9

 

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 Etnics

1. General Statement

English Community Journal (ECJ), published by the English Education Study Program, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Palembang, Indonesia, is committed to academic integrity, accountability, fairness, transparency, and responsible scholarly publishing.

This policy outlines the ethical responsibilities of authors, peer reviewers, editors, and the publisher, as well as procedures for addressing concerns about research and publication misconduct. It has been developed with reference to guidance issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Reference to these sources does not imply COPE membership, endorsement, or certification.

Editorial decisions shall be based on academic merit, relevance to the journal's scope, reliability of the evidence, and compliance with applicable ethical standards.

2. Duties of Authors

2.1. Reporting Standards and Research Integrity

Authors must report their research accurately, honestly, and sufficiently clearly to allow critical evaluation. Authors are expected to:

  • Describe the research design, participants or sources, instruments, procedures, analysis, and limitations as appropriate to the study.
  • Present findings and interpretations accurately, without fabrication, falsification, selective manipulation, or misleading presentation.
  • Distinguish their findings from interpretations and conclusions drawn from previous studies.
  • Respond to reasonable editorial requests for clarification or supporting documentation.

2.2. Originality, Plagiarism, and Multiple Submission

Submitted manuscripts must be original, with appropriate acknowledgment of other people's intellectual contributions. The following practices are unacceptable:

  • Plagiarism, including unattributed copying and inappropriate paraphrasing.
  • Presenting substantial previously published material as new work without proper citation or disclosure.
  • Simultaneous submission of substantially the same manuscript to more than one journal.
  • Fabrication of references or deliberate manipulation of citations.

Authors should disclose relevant preprints, conference versions, related manuscripts, or overlapping publications. ECJ may use similarity-checking tools and editorial review to investigate textual overlap. A similarity score alone is not proof of plagiarism; context, attribution, extent, and the nature of the overlap must also be assessed.

2.3. Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship must reflect genuine and substantial scholarly contributions. All listed authors must approve the manuscript and agree to its submission. In particular:

  • Every author must accept responsibility for their contributions and cooperate in addressing questions about the integrity of the work.
  • Guest, gift, and ghost authorship are not acceptable.
  • Contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged, with their permission.
  • The corresponding author must ensure that co-authors are informed about submission, revisions, and editorial decisions.
  • Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must include a reason and written agreement from all affected authors.

Unresolved authorship disputes may be referred to the relevant institution for independent assessment.

2.4. Acknowledgment of Sources and Permissions

Authors must cite sources accurately, acknowledge work that materially informed their research, and obtain permission where required for copyrighted figures, tables, images, instruments, or other materials. Confidential information obtained through private communication must not be published without appropriate authorization.

2.5. Research Ethics, Informed Consent, and Participant Protection

Research involving human participants must respect autonomy, privacy, dignity, and applicable legal and institutional requirements. Authors must, where appropriate:

  • Obtain ethics committee approval or an authorized exemption when required.
  • Obtain informed consent and explain the purpose and voluntary nature of participation.
  • Address parent or guardian permission and children's assent for research involving minors, in accordance with applicable rules.
  • Protect the confidentiality of students, teachers, and other participants in interviews, questionnaires, observations, tests, and audio or video recordings.
  • Obtain appropriate authorization before publishing identifiable photographs, recordings, quotations, or personal information.

Institutional permission from a school or university does not automatically replace informed consent from individual participants.

2.6. Research Data Integrity, Access, and Retention

Authors should preserve research records, source materials, and analysis documentation in accordance with applicable institutional policies, consent arrangements, and law. They must be prepared to provide relevant evidence to the editorial team when a legitimate integrity concern arises.

Data sharing is encouraged when ethical and feasible; however, confidential interviews, identifiable student records, protected personal data, and institutionally restricted materials must not be disclosed without proper authorization. Authors should explain material restrictions on data access when relevant.

2.7. Conflicts of Interest and Funding Disclosure

Authors must disclose financial, institutional, professional, personal, or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the study. Funding sources and the funders' roles in the research or manuscript preparation must be stated. Where requested, authors should explicitly declare that no competing interests exist.

2.8. Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence

Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, confidentiality, and integrity of any AI-assisted content. The following conditions apply:

  • Disclosure: Substantive use of generative AI for drafting, translation, coding, analysis, image creation, or other research or writing tasks must be described, including the tool and the purpose and extent of its use.
  • Verification: Authors must independently verify AI-assisted claims, citations, quotations, analyses, and images.
  • Authorship: AI systems must not be listed as authors or co-authors.
  • Confidentiality: Identifiable participant data or restricted research information must not be uploaded to external AI services without appropriate authorization and safeguards.
  • Prohibited practices: Fabricated references, invented data, undisclosed manipulation of findings, or deceptive presentation of AI-generated material are unacceptable.

Ordinary spelling or grammar checking that does not materially generate or change scholarly content need not be reported as substantive AI assistance.

2.9. Fundamental Errors and Cooperation

Authors who identify a material error in a submitted or published article must promptly notify the editor and cooperate with an appropriate correction or other necessary action. Authors should respond in good faith to requests concerning research ethics, permissions, data verification, and integrity matters.

3. Duties of Peer Reviewers

3.1. Competence, Timeliness, and Objectivity

Peer reviewers are expected to:

  • Accept assignments only when they have sufficient expertise and can provide a timely review.
  • Offer constructive, evidence-based comments on originality, methods, ethical integrity, clarity, and scholarly contribution.
  • Avoid personal attacks, discriminatory comments, and unjustified citation requests.
  • Inform the editor promptly if they cannot complete an appropriate review.

3.2. Confidentiality and Responsible Use of Technology

Submitted manuscripts, unpublished findings, and editorial correspondence are confidential. Reviewers must not disclose or use unpublished material for personal advantage, or upload confidential manuscripts or data to external AI systems without express editorial authorization and adequate safeguards. Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their reports.

3.3. Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Concerns

Reviewers must promptly disclose potential conflicts of interest, including personal, collaborative, institutional, supervisory, financial, or competitive relationships. They should report suspected plagiarism, substantial overlap, manipulated findings, missing ethical approval, or other serious concerns privately to the editor, with available supporting evidence. Reviewers should not independently investigate or publicly accuse authors.

4. Duties of Editors and the Publisher

4.1. Fair Evaluation and Editorial Independence

Editors must evaluate manuscripts on scholarly merit, relevance, evidence quality, and ethical compliance, without discrimination based on identity, nationality, gender, religion, institutional affiliation, or political opinion. Institutional, commercial, personal, and financial interests must not improperly influence editorial decisions.

4.2. Confidentiality, Impartiality, and Conflicts of Interest

Editors and editorial staff must protect confidential submission information, refrain from using unpublished materials without authorization, and recuse themselves from handling submissions where they have a material conflict of interest. A suitable independent editor should be appointed where needed.

4.3. Peer Review and Editorial Decisions

ECJ must implement the review model and procedures described on its official Peer Review Process page. Reviewers should be selected for relevant expertise and assessed for potential conflicts. Editors shall critically consider reviewer recommendations, provide justified decisions, and ensure that requested revisions are academically relevant.

4.4. Protection of the Scholarly Record

The editors and publisher must respond to credible allegations of publication misconduct, seek relevant evidence, consult research institutions when warranted, and take proportionate steps to protect the scholarly record. Appropriate corrections, notices, or retractions should be published transparently and linked to affected articles.

5. Allegations of Misconduct, Complaints, and Appeals

5.1. Reporting and Preliminary Assessment

Concerns about submitted manuscripts, published articles, reviewers, editors, or editorial procedures may be reported through ECJ's official editorial contact channel. A report should identify the manuscript or decision concerned, explain the issue, and provide available evidence. The editorial team will assess whether further inquiry is warranted and handle good-faith reports with appropriate confidentiality.

5.2. Investigation and Due Process

Where credible concerns warrant an investigation, the journal should follow an evidence-based, fair, and documented procedure:

  1. Preliminary assessment: Evaluate the allegation, available evidence, and potential risks.
  2. Notification and clarification: Inform relevant parties when appropriate and provide a reasonable opportunity to respond.
  3. Evidence examination: Review pertinent manuscripts, records, data, permissions, and institutional documentation as necessary.
  4. Impartial editorial evaluation: Arrange independent handling when an editor has a conflict of interest.
  5. Decision and communication: Determine proportionate action and communicate the decision and its rationale to affected parties.
  6. Follow-up: Implement any necessary correction, expression of concern, retraction, or referral to a relevant institution.

A similarity percentage by itself must not determine whether misconduct occurred. An investigation should consider the reliability and seriousness of the evidence.

5.3. Possible Outcomes

Depending on the evidence and the nature of the concern, ECJ may:

  • Close the case without further action.
  • Request clarification, documentation, or revision.
  • Reject a manuscript before publication.
  • Issue a correction, expression of concern, or retraction after publication.
  • Refer a serious matter to an appropriate research institution or competent authority.
  • Consider future submission restrictions for serious or repeated misconduct, subject to an approved, fair, and documented policy.

5.4. Complaints and Appeals

Authors and other concerned parties may submit a reasoned complaint or appeal through the journal's official contact channel, identifying the contested decision and providing relevant evidence. Where feasible, an editor who was not responsible for the original decision should assess the appeal. The outcome and rationale should be communicated to the complainant. An appeal does not guarantee acceptance of a manuscript.

6. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

ECJ is committed to maintaining an accurate and trustworthy scholarly record. Depending on the circumstances, it may publish:

  • Correction: A notice addressing an identifiable error that does not invalidate the article's principal findings or conclusions.
  • Expression of concern: A notice alerting readers to significant unresolved issues while an investigation is ongoing or cannot presently be concluded.
  • Retraction: A notice identifying a publication whose findings or conclusions are substantially unreliable, including because of serious error, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or redundant publication.

Retraction serves to correct the scholarly record rather than to punish authors. Notices must identify the affected article, state the reasons clearly and fairly, remain accessible, and be linked to the article and its metadata. When appropriate, the original article should remain available with its corrected or retracted status prominently indicated. Well-founded post-publication criticism should be evaluated through suitable editorial channels.

7. Implementation and Policy Review

This statement should be read alongside ECJ's Author Guidelines, Peer Review Process, Copyright and Licensing Policy, and other published editorial policies. The editorial board should resolve inconsistencies among these documents and review this statement periodically in light of updated ethics guidance, applicable law, and the journal's actual editorial procedures.

Reference Guidance