Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Retorik: Jurnal Ilmu Humaniora was founded in 2001 with the aim of seeking a new scientific ethos in the humanities with an interdisciplinary, political, and textual spirit. It was, and still remains, the aspiration of Retorik to foster humanities research with a scientific ethos capable of responding to the needs of the Indonesian society that continues to strive to become more democratic, just, and pluralistic in the aftermath of long authoritarian rule, under social, economic, and political conditions still characterized by inequality. In its interdisciplinary spirit, Retorik has drawn insights from an array of disciplines, most notably, political economy, language (including semiotics), and psychoanalysis, to that end.

As various managerial requirements stifle the passion for academic and intellectual life, while simultaneously in the broader Indonesian society, the ideals of Reformation are frustrated by political and economic oligarchy that continues to exist with impunity, Retorik affirms the need to defend a scientific ethos at present, for the future.

In light of its aims, Retorik promotes original research that makes advances in the following areas:

1. Historically-informed studies that engage with the conditions, contexts, and relations of power within which the humanities were born, and with which the humanities are entwined.

2. Dialogues with various disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, including history, sociology, psychology, and anthropology.

3. Interdisciplinary research pertaining to critical pedagogy, religious and cultural studies, art studies, and new social movements.

4. Experimentation with new forms of knowledge that foster the formation of a more democratic, just, and plural society.

5. Studies that are sensitive to the vital role of both technology and art in contemporary society and seek to understand the ways in which art, technology, and economy together contribute to the formation of contemporary cultures and societies.

 

Section Policies

Editorial

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Book Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Retorik adheres to a policy of double-blind peer review. After an initial screening by the editors, each manuscript will be reviewed by at least one external reviewer that is determined by the editorial board. The identity of the author of any manuscript sent for review will not be disclosed to the reviewer. After the final decision on the manuscript is made, the identity of the author may be provided to the reviewer, upon the reviewer’s request.

Retorik aims to provide authors with reviewer feedback within twelve weeks and make a final decision on their submissions within four months.

 

Open Access Policy

Retorik 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.

 

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...

 

Statement on Publication Ethics

Retorik endorses the following guidelines on publication ethics:

 

Duties of authors

Reporting Standard

  • Authors should submit articles which have not been published or are being reviewed for publication elsewhere.
  • Authors are expected to have made reasonable attempts to check and validate results submitted to the journal for publication.
  • Authors are required to provide real and authentic research data.
  • Authors should write accurate and comprehensive reports for conceptual ideas.
  • Authors should confirm that the journal is not published in another journal.
  • Authors are required to cite the sources correctly by considering the content of the manuscript either in the form of written publications and personal interviews.

Originality and plagiarism

  • The authors should confirm 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 following The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

  • Authors should not submit or publish the same manuscript to more than one journal or primary publication.
  • Authors should not submit or publish a published manuscript with different/translated language.

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 research.
  • 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.

Data Access and Retention

  • Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should in any event be prepared to keep such data for a reasonable time after publication.

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.
  • If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

 

Duties of editors

Fair Play

  • An editor assesses manuscripts based only on the originality and the quality of the paper and should not be affected by the religious, national, political or any other influences.
  • Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in editors' own research.

Confidentiality

  • The editors 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. 


Duties of peer reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

  • Peer reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions through the Open Journal System
  • Peer reviewers may also assist the author anonymously to give proper assessment and judgement of the submitted paper through the editorial communications with the author.
  • Reviewers should immediately inform the editor if any forms of plagiarism or ethical issues are identified within submitted work.

Promptness

  • Peer reviewers who feel unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or know that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editors and excuse themselves 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.
  • The reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting rationale arguments. 

Acknowledgement of Sources

  • Reviewers should point out on relevant published work which is not cited in the article.
  • 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 with any of the authors or institutions connected to the papers.