Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Wacana: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Komunikasi focuses on writings that contains scientific research and contemporary thinking in the field of Communication Studies in various angles/ perspectives. include:
• Communication sciences
• Public Relations
• Media
• Advertising
• Cultural Studies
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)

Wacana: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Komunikasi (p-ISSN 1412-7873 , e-ISSN 2598-7402) was launched in 2002 in the print version, online version 2017 and is an academic journal published by the research center, Faculty of Communication Sciences, Universitas Prof. Dr. Moestopo (Beragama) in collaboration with Ikatan Sarjana Ilmu Komunikasi (ISKI). Wacana: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Komunikasi is published twice a year (June and December).

Wacana: Jurnal Ilmiah Komunikasi has been Accredited with the fourth rank of SINTA 4 in the National Journal Accreditation (ARJUNA) by the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education, Republic of Indonesia since November 2019 according to the decision No. 28/E/KPT/2019 as an achievement for peer-reviewed journals that have excellent management and publication quality.

Article published in Wacana: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Komunikasi, is an article based on the results of research (priority), and articles on scientific reviews of contemporary phenomena in the field of communication. In receiving articles that will be reviewed by internal, external editors and reviewers. Each article entered in the Wacana journal will be sent to the editor's section through the Initial Review process. After that, the articles will be sent to peer reviewers to get the Double-Blind Peer Review Process.

 

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Every article that goes to the chief editorial will be send to section editor through Initial Review processes. Then, the articles will be sent to the peer reviewers to get Double-Blind Peer Review Process.
  1. Every Submitted manuscript will go thorugh blind review process.
  2. The review process considering the novelty, objectivity, methodology, scientific impact, conclusions, and references
  3. Reviewers have to provide written feedback in a timely manner on the benefits of scientific and scientific value of the work
  4. Avoid personal comments or criticism
  5. Notify the editor immediately if unable to review in a timely manner and if possible, provide the names of other potential reviewers
  6. Pay attention to ethical concerns, such as the substantial similarity between the last text and any text papers published or submitted to another journal.
  7. Ensure that articles published comply with the standards of the journal
  8. Protect readers from incorrect or flawed research and studies that can not be validated by others.

 

Publication Frequency

Wacana: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Komunikasi published twice a year (biannual) in June and December.

 

Open Access Policy

Wacana: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Komunikasi 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...

 

Plagiarism Checker

Articles submitted to the Wacana: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Komunikasi will be filtered first to avoid plagiarism using software Turnitin and Google-based search engines. The decision on the manuscript for the next process depends very much on the level of originality and the level of similarity of the articles received with other previously published articles.

 

Publication Ethics

This is the statement of ethics for Wacana: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Komunikasi published by Fakultas Ilmu Komunikasi Universitas Prof. Dr. Moestopo (Beragama). This statement was adapted from the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and covers the code of ethics for editorial board members, reviewers and authors.

Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting Standards: Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts should follow the submission guidelines of the journal.
  2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.
  3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: Author should not in general submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced
  4. Acknowledgement of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.
  5. Authorship of the Paper: The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contribution must be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgement section. Authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors.
  6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should clearly 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.
  7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, then the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
  8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: The author should clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.

Duties of Editor

  1. Publication Decisions: Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors 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 editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.
  2. Review of Manuscripts: Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. Editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
  3. Fair Play: The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.
  4. Confidentiality: The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable.
  5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research without written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest

Duties of Reviewers

  1. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  2. Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. 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. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
  3. Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work
  4. 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. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
Promptness: The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.

 

Author Fees

This journal charges the following author fees.

Article Publication: 500.000.00 (IDR)

Based on the policy of the new management of the  Wacana: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Komunikasi, starting from the issue of Volume 21 No. 1 June 2022, the publication fee for papers submitted to Wacana: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Komunikasi (SINTA 4) is 500,000 (IDR).