Diksi is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal published by Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. The journal is committed to the highest standards of publication ethics. All parties involved in publishing must know and follow these standards: authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher. This statement is based on the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME), and the ICMJE Recommendations. It should be read together with the journal’s more detailed policies:

• Author Guidelines
• Generative AI Policy
• Peer Review Process
• Research Misconduct
• Correction & Retraction
• Post-publication Discussions and Corrections

1. Duties of Authors

1.1 Originality and plagiarism

• Authors must submit entirely original work and properly cite or quote the work and words of others.
• Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable. This includes verbatim copying, uncited paraphrasing, translation plagiarism, and substantial text recycling from one’s own work.
• All manuscripts are checked with similarity-detection software.

1.2 Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publication

• A manuscript must not have been published before and must not be under consideration by another journal.
• Publications based on the same data or study must be disclosed and cross-referenced. A previous conference presentation or preprint must be stated at submission.

1.3 Authorship

• Authorship is limited to those who made a substantial contribution to the conception, design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation of the study. They must also have drafted or critically revised the manuscript, approved the final version, and agreed to be accountable for the work.
• Contributions are described using the CRediT taxonomy. Others who contributed should be acknowledged.
• Gift, guest, and ghost authorship are not permitted. Any change to the author list after submission requires the written agreement of all authors and the editor’s approval.
• The corresponding author ensures that all co-authors have approved the submission and acts as the contact with the journal.

1.4 Data, accuracy, and reporting standards

• Authors must present an accurate account of the work and an objective discussion of its significance. Data must be reported honestly, without fabrication, falsification, or selective omission.
• Authors must follow the reporting standards appropriate to their study, for example PRISMA 2020 for systematic reviews.
• Authors should keep their raw data and provide it on the editor’s request. They must include a Data Availability Statement.

1.5 Research with human participants

• Research involving human participants, such as interviews, surveys, observations, or classroom research, must have the approval or exemption of an appropriate ethics committee.
• Informed consent must be obtained from participants, or from guardians for minors.
• Confidentiality and anonymity must be protected, and particular care is required with vulnerable groups, such as children, students, minorities, migrants, and people in conflict settings.
• Photographs or quotations that could identify individuals require explicit consent.

1.6 Conflicts of interest and funding

• All authors must disclose any financial or non-financial interests that could be seen to influence the work in a Disclosure Statement. These include institutional, political, personal, or religious interests.
• All funding sources and the funder’s role must be declared.

1.7 Use of generative AI

• Generative AI may assist with tasks such as language editing, translation, idea generation, literature classification, and coding. It must not be used to generate data, results, images presented as data, or references.
• AI tools cannot be authors. Any use must be disclosed in a Declaration of Generative AI Use, giving the tool and version, how and why it was used, and how the output was checked.
• Reviewers and editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts to AI tools.
• Full details are given in the journal’s Generative AI Policy.

1.8 Errors in published work

• When authors discover a significant error in their published work, they must promptly notify the editor and cooperate in correcting or retracting the article (see the Correction & Retraction policy).

2. Duties of Editors

2.1 Publication decisions

• The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which manuscripts are published. Decisions are based on the manuscripts’ originality, rigour, significance, relevance to the journal’s scope, and the reviewers’ advice. They are not based on commercial considerations.
• Decisions are made within the timelines set out in the Peer Review Process: a first decision within about 6 weeks, and a final decision normally within 5 months of submission.

2.2 Fairness and non-discrimination

• Manuscripts are evaluated solely on their scholarly merit. The authors’ race, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, citizenship, political views, institution, or seniority are not taken into account.

2.3 Confidentiality

• Editors disclose information about a submitted manuscript only to the authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial advisers, as appropriate. They protect the anonymity of authors and reviewers in double-anonymous review.
• Unpublished material may not be used for an editor’s own research without the authors’ written consent.

2.4 Conflicts of interest

• Editors must withdraw from handling manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest, for example a collaborative, competitive, institutional, or personal relationship with the authors.
• Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members are handled independently by another editor, and the editor-author is excluded from the review process.

2.5 Handling of ethical concerns

• Editors take reasonable and timely action when ethical concerns are raised about a manuscript or published article, following the COPE flowcharts and the journal’s Research Misconduct policy.
• They correct the scholarly record through corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions where necessary.

3. Duties of Reviewers

• Contribution to decisions: reviewers help editors make decisions and help authors improve their manuscripts. Reviewers must have relevant expertise and at least one publication as an author in a Scopus- or Web of Science-indexed journal.
• Promptness: reviewers who feel unqualified, or who cannot complete the review within 21 days, should decline promptly.
• Confidentiality: manuscripts are confidential. They must not be shared or discussed with others, and must not be uploaded to generative AI tools.
• Objectivity: reviews should be objective, specific, and courteous, and support their points with clear arguments. Personal criticism is inappropriate. Reviewers should not ask authors to cite the reviewer’s own work without a genuine scholarly reason.
• Acknowledgement of sources: reviewers should point out relevant published work that has not been cited, and inform the editor of any substantial similarity with other work or any suspected misconduct.
• Conflicts of interest: reviewers must decline manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest, and should not try to identify the authors.

4. Duties of the Publisher

• Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, as publisher, supports the editorial independence of the journal and does not interfere in editorial decisions.
• The publisher provides the resources needed for:
  • similarity checking;
  • DOI registration with Crossref;
  • long-term digital preservation;
  • maintaining the integrity of the published record.
• The publisher works with the editors to handle ethical concerns, corrections, and retractions, following COPE guidance.

5. Policies on Specific Issues

The journal applies the COPE Core Practices as follows:

• Allegations of misconduct: handled confidentially and fairly, as set out in the Research Misconduct policy.
• Authorship and contributorship: CRediT roles; disputes are referred to the authors’ institutions.
• Complaints and appeals: appeals against editorial decisions are made to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision and decided by an editor who was not involved in the original decision. Complaints about the journal’s processes are handled by the Editor-in-Chief, or by the publisher if the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief.
• Conflicts of interest: disclosed by authors, reviewers, and editors, as described above.
• Data and reproducibility: Data Availability Statements are required, and raw data may be requested.
• Ethical oversight: ethics approval and informed consent are required for research with human participants.
• Intellectual property: articles are published open access under a Creative Commons licence, and authors keep copyright, as stated on the journal’s Copyright and Licence page. Plagiarism and copyright infringement are not tolerated.
• Journal management: the editorial board, ownership, fees, and policies are published transparently on the journal website.
• Peer review: double-anonymous review by at least two reviewers, as described in the Peer Review Process.
• Post-publication discussions and corrections: handled through comments, errata, corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions, as described in the Post-publication Discussions and Corrections and Correction & Retraction policies.

6. Reporting Ethical Concerns

1. Send your concern to the Editor-in-Chief through the journal website, with the manuscript ID or the article DOI and specific evidence.
2. You will receive an acknowledgement within 7 working days. Your identity will be kept confidential.
3. The editors assess the concern, contact the parties involved, and act according to COPE guidance and the journal’s policies.

Sources

• Committee on Publication Ethics. (2017). Core practices. https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
• Committee on Publication Ethics. (2017). Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (Version 2). https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9
• Committee on Publication Ethics. (2023). Authorship and AI tools: COPE position statement. https://publicationethics.org/cope-position-statements/ai-author
• Committee on Publication Ethics, Directory of Open Access Journals, Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association, & World Association of Medical Editors. (2022). Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing (Version 4). https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2024). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
• ALL European Academies. (2023). The European code of conduct for research integrity (Revised ed.). https://doi.org/10.26356/ECOC
• National Information Standards Organization. (2022). CRediT, Contributor Roles Taxonomy (ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022). https://credit.niso.org/