Focus and Scope

Medan Makna: Jurnal Ilmu Kebahasaan dan Kesastraan is a research journal which publishes various research reports, literature studies and scientific writings on phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, discourse analysis, pragmatics, anthropolinguistics, language and culture, dialectology, language documentation, forensic linguistics, comparative historical linguistics, cognitive linguistics, computational linguistics, corpus linguistics, neurolinguistics, language education, translation, language planning, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics and other scientific fields related to language studies. It is published periodically twice a year in June and December. Each article published will be assessment process by peer reviewers.

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

FRONT PAGE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

PENGANTAR REDAKSI

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

DAFTAR ISI

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Book Review

Editors

• Agus Mulia

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

After submit inventions have made a preliminary review of the manuscript by the editor MEDAN MAKNA. Editor will decide whether the manuscript in accordance with the scope and focus and proper to give to the reviewer. Sometimes, editors may recommend revision before submitting for review. This initial review of activities usually takes a week.

Submissions that pass the initial review will be assigned to at least two reviewers (double-blind peer review). Based on the review editor will first make editorial decisions.

There are five possible editorial decisions (1) the manuscript is accepted, (2) be amended, (3) re-submit, (4) is sent to another publisher, or (5) is rejected.

Typically, the time frame of delivery to the first editor of the average results of 6-8 weeks.

The time to reach a final decision depends on the number of reviews rotation, perceptive writer etc. Typically, the time frame of delivery by an average of 4-5 months a final decision.

Publication Frequency

MEDAN MAKNA is published twice a year in June and December

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.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

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 Frequency

Medan  Makna is a Journal published online twice a year in the middle of the year (June) and in the end of the year (December).

Open Access

Medan Makna provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public to supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Article Processing Charges

Every article submitted to MEDAN MAKNA will not have any 'Article Processing Charges'. This includes peer-reviewing, editing, publishing, maintaining and archiving, and allows immediate access to the full text versions of the articles.

Plagiarism Check

Every article accepted by MEDAN MAKNA  shall be an object to Grammarly writing-enhancement program conducted by MEDAN  MAKNA Editorial Board

Accreditation Certificate

Medan Makna  is in the process of certification by the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) even though it already has ISSN.

.

References Management

Every article submitted to MEDAN MAKNA  shall use reference management application e.g. Mendeley

Copy Editing and Proofreading

Every article accepted by MEDAN MAKNA  shall be an object to Grammarly® writing-enhancement program conducted by MEDAN MAKNA Editorial Board.

Peer Review Process

Medan Makna reviewing policies are:

• Every submitted paper will be reviewed by at least two peer-reviewers.
• Reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers.
• Reviewing process will consider novelty, objectivity, method, scientific impact, conclusion, and references.

Publication Ethic and Malpractic Statemen

Our ethic statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Publication decisions
The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.
The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play
An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality
The editor 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.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself 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. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. 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 or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure 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.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

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 study. 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.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for 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.

Review Guidlines

Review Process of Manuscript: Initial Review

1. Read the abstract to be sure that you have the expertise to review the article. Don’t be afraid to say no to reviewing an article if there is the good reason.
2. Read information provided by the journal for reviewers so you will know: a) The type of manuscript (e.g., a review article, technical note, original research) and the journal’s expectations/parameters for that type of manuscript.; b) Other journal requirements that the manuscript must meet (e.g., length, citation style).
   
3. Know the journal’s scope and mission to make sure that the topic of the paper fits in the scope.
4. Ready? Read through entire manuscript initially to see if the paper is worth publishing- only make a few notes about major problems if such exist: a) Is the question of interest sound and significant?; b) Was the design and/or method used adequately or fatally flawed? (for original research papers); c) Were the results substantial enough to consider publishable (or were only two or so variables presented or resulted so flawed as to render the paper unpublishable)?
5. What is your initial impression? If the paper is: a) Acceptable with only minor comments/questions: solid, interesting, and new; sound methodology used; results were well presented; discussion well formulated with Interpretations based on sound science reasoning, etc., with only minor comments/questions, move directly to writing up review; b) Fatally flawed so you will have to reject it: move directly to writing up review; c) A mixture somewhere in the range of “revise and resubmit” to “accepted with major changes” or you’re unsure if it should be rejected yet or not: It may be a worthy paper, but there are major concerns that would need to be addressed.

 Full Review Process of Manuscript

1. Writing: Is the manuscript easy to follow, that is, has a logical progression and evident organisation?
2. Is the manuscript concise and understandable? Any parts that should be reduced,
3. Eliminated/expanded/added?
4. Note if there are major problems with mechanics: grammar, punctuation, spelling. (If there are just a few places that aren’t worded well or correctly, make a note to tell the author the specific places. If there are consistent problems throughout, only select an example or two if need be- don’t try and edit the whole thing).
5. Abbreviations: Used judiciously and are composed such that reader won’t have trouble remembering what an abbreviation represents.
6. Follows style, format and other rules of the journal.
7. Citations are provided when providing evidence-based information from outside sources.