The proposed articles can come from the fields of languages, social sciences, cultures, and education.
Peer-reviews assists the editor in making decisions to be accepted or rejected by an article that enters Epigram, peer-reviewed (a sustainable partner) to conduct a blinded review and evaluation of papers that are reasonable in authors expertise. The reviewers do not know the author's name and the name of the author's institution as blind-review. It means to avoid conflicts of interest and to assure the quality of the paper.
Each paper is reviewed at least by a reviewer using track change in the article. All comments, suggestions, and reviewers' comments are written by using track change. It is to facilitate the editor and writer team in communicating the results of the review. Thus, Epigram does not require any other form to deliver the results of the report from the reviewer to the editorial team.
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.
Publication Ethics Statement
CODE OF ETHICS FOR SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS
The ethics of scientific publications in Epigram is used to guide that all the writings published in the journal have followed ethical principles in academic publications to prevent misunderstandings and conflicts. This paper presents several articles related to the field of language, social science, culture, and education on ethics in this journal publication (authors, editors, truthful partners, publishers, and readers).
Guidelines on Ethics in Journal Publications
Epigram publishes articles from the results of scientific research in the field of language, social science, culture, education and has not been edited or in the process of submission in other publications.
Epigram is a peer-reviewed journal in the publication of an article in building a coherent and recognized network of knowledge about languages, social sciences, cultures, and education. The papers sent to Epigram must be able to point the quality of the writing of the author. Therefore, it is essential to arrange standards in ethical behavior for all colleague engaged in the publication: authors, editors, partners, publishers, and journal sponsors.
Articles are original reports of research results and present accurate articles from research conducted by the objectives. The data presented in the paper must be accurate based on research results. Published articles must be adequate and detailed so that they can use as references or references for other researchers. The team editor will not accept presented data, not by ethical behavior in Epigram.
Plagiarism and Originality
The author has to ensure the article written is the original work of the author himself. If the author enters the results of the research or references from others, the author must admit the name of the author of the article. Plagiarism is an action of imitating and copying all items relating to what is written by another writer and claimed by another author without including the original author. This deed of plagiarism is unethical behavior in the publication and not able accepted in Epigram. Entering the same article to more than one journal is unethical behavior and is not acceptable.
The authors and co-authors of the article
The author and co-authors of the article are who has engaged significantly to the concept of writing, those who have contributed to significant contributions registered as co-authors. The author must assure the conformity of the articles with the co-authors before submitting for Epigram.
Errors in Published Articles
When the author discovers a fundamental mistake or inaccuracy in the research that will be published by the Epigram, the author's obligation to immediately notify the journal editor or editorial board to retract the article and correct it.
EDITORIAL BOARD OF ASSIGNMENTS
Publication Decision and Justice in Publication
The editorial team of Epigram is responsible for deciding which articles publish in Epigram. Sustainable reviewers work closely with the editorial team in determining which they are eligible to be published in Epigram. Editors and sustainable partners evaluate the articles for content regardless of gender, relatives, ethnic origin, religious beliefs, citizenship, or political philosophy of the writer.
Confidentiality of the Process Publication
The Editors and staff editors prevent the leak of author confidentiality and the writing before the article published in Epigram. The editorial team and editorial staff did not give the names and institutions of origin of all authors to sustainable reviewers to ensure that reviewing in the blinded review paper.
Information Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Entered articles but not published in Epigram may not be used by the editorial team in their research without the written approval of the author. Specific data obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal concerns. The editorial team conducts appropriate actions in addressing this, such as publication.
Cooperation and Engagement in Publication
The editor will take steps when there is an ethics complaint in the paper. These steps start from contacting the author of the article and giving consideration to the claim in objection, but also including further communication with relevant agencies and research bodies, repairs to publications, and appropriate actions related to the charge.
DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
The Decision of the Editorial Team
Each paper is reviewed at least by two reviewers using track change in the article. All comments, suggestions, and reviewers' comments are written by using track change. It is to facilitate the editor and writer team in communicating the results of the review. Thus, Epigram does not require any other form to deliver the results of the report from the reviewer to the editorial team.
The review process in Epigram generally takes 1-4 months, and if the review process takes longer because of one reason or another, the editor will communicate to the author. The editor team expects the administrative review process, the improvement of the author and the publication of the article, taken out six months.
Every received article treated as a confidential document. The section may not be discussed with other parties unless permitted by the editorial board.
The review must be objective
The editor team strives to review articles objectively. The results of the analyses have to sharpen the writing, especially in strengthening the results and discussion of the research objectives so that it can support the improvement of the article.
Source / Reference Recognition
The reviewer should identify relevant research that will be published that there is no plagiarism by the author. The reviewer must observe, explore each statement in the discussion and report by the relevant quote. Reviewers must also provide an understanding of the editor regarding substantial similarities and overlap with the articles before the article is published.
The documents must meet the maximum similarity limit of 20% to proceed to the review process. To check the possibility of plagiarism manuscript is submitted using the application Ithenticate