The Journal of the JALT CALL
|Home||About||Editorial Board||Guidelines for Contributors||Contact|
Manuscripts considered for publication
will be double blind reviewed for their presentation and analysis
of new empirical data using appropriate research methods,
development of theories relevant to language learning and
teaching, development or refinement of language learning
pedagogies, and discussion papers relevant to teachers and
learners of languages at all levels. All manuscripts must be in
APA format throughout (including all citations and references).
- A clear and specific title
Note that all submissions to the journal must be original work that has not been published elsewhere. If we find that an article has been published previously elsewhere before being published in The JALT CALL Journal without permission from both The JALT CALL Journal editors and the editors of the previous publication, the offending author(s) may be responsible for re-printing and re-distribution costs of that issue of the journal.
Manuscripts should be submitted through the online submission system at http://jcj.jaltcall.org. Manuscripts will no longer be accepted by email, but any questions about the submission system or the journal may be directed to firstname.lastname@example.org.
You will need to follow the following steps to make a submission:
1. Access the online submission site at:
2. If you do not already have an account, please click on "Not a user? Register with this site"
3. Fill in your details on this page. Please ensure you use a working email address.
4. Make sure that you check the "Author" box above the "Register" button to register as an author. If you do not do this, you will not be able to submit a manuscript to the journal. You can check this afterwards by editing your profile if you forget.
5. You should see a link for a "New submission" under the heading "The JALT CALL Journal" adjacent to "Author" (If you do not see this, then please edit your profile and ensure that there is a check next to "Author" in "Roles").
6. Please follow the detailed instructions in each of the five (5) steps on the following pages. You must ensure you upload a blinded version of the manuscript in Step 2.
7. When you have finished each of the five steps according to the directions, please click on "Finish Submission" to submit the manuscript.8. You should receive an automated confirmation email regarding submission of your manuscript.
Any manuscript must receive positive recommendation from at least two members of the review board before being accepted for publication.
Manuscripts may be referred for resubmission by the reviewers, and depending on the number and nature of the revisions required, may go through the review process again. Reviewers may also recommend a change in category from Regular Paper to Forum or vice versa.
After a manuscript has been accepted, PDF proofs will be made available to the authors in due course. It is the author's responsibility to ensure that there are no errors in the proof.
All articles in The JALT CALL Journal are © 2005-2015 by the JALT CALL SIG and the respective authors of the individual articles. For more information on republication and distribution, please contact the editors.
Ethics and Malpractice Statement
The publication of any article in The JALT CALL Journal is based on strict guidelines to maintain the quality of the articles and the integrity of the journal. As publisher of The JALT CALL Journal, the JALT CALL SIG recognizes its duties in maintaining ethical and other responsibilities in
Duties of Authors:
(These guidelines are based on existing Elsevier policies).
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 manuscript. 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.
Data access and retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a manuscript for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and plagiarism
Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others or from their own previously published and unpublished work, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from passing off another's paper as the author's own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
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 behavior and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g., clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of all of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
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. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
Authorship of the manuscript
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.
Hazards and human or animal subjects
If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
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. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
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-in-chief and cooperate in the retraction or correction of the paper. If the editor-in-chief 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-in-chief of the correctness of the original paper.
Duties of the Editorial Board:
These guidelines are based on existing Elsevier policies and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
The editor-in-chief of The JALT CALL Journal is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor-in-chief 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-in-chief may confer with the associate editors or reviewers in making this decision.
An editor-in-chief will evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editor-in-chief and any editorial staff will 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 will not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. The editors will recuse themselves (i.e., ask an associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
The editor-in-chief will take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.
Duties of reviewers:
(These guidelines are based on existing Elsevier policies and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors).
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. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Elsevier shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
Any selected reviewer 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.
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-in-chief.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers 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-in-chief'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
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. 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.
|Copyright (C) 2005-2015 The JALT CALL SIG|