About the Journal

Focus and Scope

Lingua Cultura is an international journal published in July and December, first publication is in 2007. It is accredited by the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, and Technology under the decree number 10/C/C3/DT.05.00/2025. The journal contents are managed by Research and Technology Transfer (RTT),  Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, Indonesia. The objective of the journal is to provide a forum for lecturers, researchers, students, and practitioners to present their ideas, concepts, and new theories in the fields of language, literature, and sociolinguistics, while increasingly engaging with Digital Humanities.

Lingua Cultura presents articles based on research in the study of language, literature, and sociolinguistics, increasingly engaging with Digital Humanities. The journal welcomes contributions in Applied Linguistics, Multilingualism, Literacy, and Language Arts, as well as studies exploring the intersections of language and digital culture. In literature, it features analyses of novels, films, and drama using diverse theoretical and interdisciplinary approaches. It also promotes research in sociolinguistic studies, including topics such as identity, media, and globalization.

 Lingua Cultura has been indexed in Crossref, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Indonesia OneSearch, Google Scholar, Garda Rujukan Digital (GARUDA), Indonesian Publication Index (IPI), the World Catalogue (WorldCat), Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE), Science and Technology Index 2 (SINTA 2), Academic Resource Index (ResearchBib), Scientific Indexing Services (SIS), CiteFactor and Indonesian Research Repository (Neliti).

Peer Review Process

To maintain high standards of quality in its publication, each manuscript of our journal received by the secretariat will undergo the following process:

1. Desk review by the editors to determine whether the manuscripts comply with the writing guidelines.
2. If the manuscripts comply with the writing guidelines, then the plagiarism check will be undertaken using Turnitin. The maximum similarity check result is 15%.
3. After passing the second step, the manuscripts are reviewed by a minimum of two reviewers (double-blind peer reviews). The reviewers do not know the names or identities of the authors during this process, nor do the authors know the identity of the reviewers.
4. Most submissions receive an editorial decision within 8 weeks until 16 weeks from the date of the submission.
5.  An article shall be reviewed by a maximum of 1 month per reviewer & be sent back to the Editor.

Publication Frequency

Lingua Cultura is a semiannual journal, published in July and December.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle of making research freely available to the public to support a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Publication Ethics

1. Responsibilities of Authors

1.1 Originality and plagiarism

Authors must submit original work that is not under consideration by another journal. All ideas, words, data, figures, tables, and other material taken from other sources must be appropriately acknowledged and cited. Plagiarism, duplicate publication, redundant publication, and inappropriate reuse of previously published material are unacceptable.

The journal may use similarity-checking software. A similarity score is not, by itself, a determination of plagiarism; the editorial team considers the nature, extent, context, and attribution of overlapping text or material.

1.2 Authorship and contributorship

Authorship must reflect substantial scholarly contributions. All listed authors must approve the final manuscript, agree to its submission, and accept accountability for their contributions and the integrity of the work. Contributors who do not qualify as authors should be acknowledged appropriately, with permission where necessary.

Gift, ghost, and honorary authorship, as well as the omission of eligible contributors, are unacceptable. Changes to authorship after submission require a valid explanation, agreement from all affected authors, and editorial approval.

1.3 Accuracy and research integrity

Authors must report methods, data, analyses, and findings accurately and transparently. Fabrication, falsification, deceptive image manipulation, misleading reporting, and deliberate concealment of information that materially affects the interpretation of results are unacceptable. Methods should be described in sufficient detail to support appropriate evaluation and verification.

1.4 Citations and prior dissemination

Authors must cite relevant sources accurately and must not manipulate citations to inflate citation metrics. Unnecessary self-citation, coercive citation, and citation cartels are unacceptable. Any substantial overlap with preprints, conference papers, theses, reports, or other publicly available material must be disclosed so the editor can assess its acceptability.

1.5 Funding and conflicts of interest

Authors must disclose relevant funding, grants, institutional support, and actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest. These may include financial, professional, personal, institutional, or commercial relationships that could influence the research or its presentation. Where required, authors should explicitly state that no conflicts of interest exist.

1.6 Data availability and retention

Authors must retain research records in accordance with applicable institutional, legal, ethical, and funder requirements. Where appropriate and ethically permissible, authors should make supporting data or materials available for verification. Data sharing must respect participant consent, privacy, confidentiality, intellectual property rights, and applicable law. If data cannot be shared, authors should explain the restriction where appropriate.

2. Research Involving Human Participants

Research involving human participants must comply with applicable ethical standards, institutional requirements, and relevant national regulations. Authors are responsible for ensuring that participants' rights, safety, dignity, privacy, and welfare are protected.

2.1 Ethics committee approval

Where required by applicable regulations, institutional policies, or the nature of the study, authors must obtain approval from an appropriate research ethics committee or institutional review board before conducting the research. The manuscript must identify the approving body and provide the approval reference or number where applicable.

Authors must state whether ethics approval was obtained, was not required, or was formally waived or exempted. Claims of exemption or non-requirement must be justified and supported by an institutional or ethics committee determination where applicable. Authors must not claim retrospective approval that was never granted.

2.2 Informed consent

Authors must explain how informed consent was obtained from participants where applicable. Consent must be voluntary and appropriately informed, and should be obtained before participation unless a valid exception has been approved or permitted under applicable ethical requirements. Any waiver of consent must be justified and, where required, approved by the relevant ethics committee.

2.3 Privacy, anonymity, and confidentiality

Authors must explain how participants' privacy and confidentiality were protected. Identifying details should be removed or safeguarded unless disclosure is ethically justified and appropriately authorised. Authors must obtain consent for publication when required, particularly where individuals may be identifiable from quotations, photographs, recordings, case details, or other information.

2.4 Children and vulnerable participants

Research involving children or other vulnerable populations must include safeguards appropriate to the participants and study. Parental or guardian permission, participant assent, additional consent procedures, and measures to minimise risk must be provided where required.

2.5 Interviews, surveys, observations, and publicly available information

Studies involving interviews, surveys, experiments, observations, recordings, photographs, or other human-subject data must explain the relevant consent, privacy, and confidentiality procedures. Public accessibility alone does not automatically mean that information may be used or republished without ethical consideration. Authors must assess the source, context, sensitivity, identifiability, and intended use of the information.

Where relevant to the discipline, authors must also comply with applicable clinical trial registration or other research registration requirements.

3. Research Involving Animals

Research involving animals must comply with applicable legislation, institutional requirements, and recognised animal-welfare standards. Where required, authors must provide the name of the approving animal ethics committee and the approval reference. Manuscripts should describe measures taken to minimise pain, distress, and harm and to ensure humane treatment.

4. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

Authors must comply with the journal's applicable policy on generative artificial intelligence (AI). AI tools must not be listed as authors because they cannot assume responsibility or accountability for scholarly work. Authors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and ethical acceptability of all submitted content.

Where required by the journal, authors must disclose the use of AI tools in writing, analysis, image generation, or other relevant research activities, identifying the tool and explaining its role. AI must not be used to fabricate data, invent references, misrepresent findings, or create deceptive images. Authors must verify AI-assisted content and respect confidentiality, privacy, copyright, and other applicable requirements.

5. Responsibilities of Editors

5.1 Fair and independent decisions

Editors must assess manuscripts fairly and impartially on their scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance to the journal's scope, and compliance with ethical requirements. Decisions must not be influenced by authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, personal characteristics, commercial interests, citation targets, or inappropriate institutional pressure.

5.2 Confidentiality

Editors must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts, reviewer reports, author information, and editorial correspondence. Unpublished information must not be used for personal advantage or disclosed to unauthorised individuals.

5.3 Conflicts of interest

Editors must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where impartiality may reasonably be compromised. An appropriate alternative editor should be appointed when necessary.

5.4 Ethical screening and misconduct

Editors must ensure appropriate editorial assessment and peer review. Screening should consider scope, originality, research integrity, ethics approval where applicable, consent, confidentiality, and conflicts of interest. Editors must take concerns about plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, duplicate publication, authorship manipulation, and other possible misconduct seriously and handle them fairly and confidentially, following applicable COPE guidance and journal procedures.

6. Responsibilities of Reviewers

6.1 Objective and timely assessment

Reviewers must provide objective, evidence-based, constructive, and timely assessments of manuscripts within their expertise. Reviews should address relevant scholarly and methodological issues. Personal criticism, discriminatory language, and unsupported allegations are unacceptable.

6.2 Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and related materials as confidential. They must not share or use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage. Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or identifiable research data to external AI systems or third-party services where this could breach confidentiality, privacy, copyright, or journal policy.

6.3 Conflicts of interest and research integrity

Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest and decline a review if a conflict cannot be appropriately managed. They must not appropriate authors' ideas or data. Suspected plagiarism, data irregularities, unethical research, or substantial undisclosed overlap should be reported confidentially to the editor.

7. Complaints and Appeals

The journal accepts complaints concerning editorial decisions, peer review, publication practices, authorship, research integrity, and the conduct of parties involved in publication. Complaints should be sent to the journal's official editorial contact and include sufficient information for assessment.

Complaints will be considered fairly, impartially, and confidentially. Appeals should explain substantive grounds, such as a material misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, or relevant information that was not adequately considered. Disagreement with an editorial decision alone does not guarantee reconsideration. Where appropriate, the editor may consult independent experts, the publisher, or the relevant institution.

8. Corrections, Retractions, and Post-Publication Discussion

The journal welcomes evidence-based reports of concerns about published work. Readers should identify the publication and provide sufficient information for the editorial team to evaluate the concern.

Where reliable evidence indicates a significant error, misleading information, or research misconduct, the journal may publish a correction, clarification, expression of concern, retraction, or other appropriate notice. Notices should be transparent, linked to the affected article, and explain the reason for the action. Authors are expected to cooperate when a significant error in their published work is identified.

9. Intellectual Property and Copyright

Authors must respect copyright, intellectual property rights, and applicable licensing requirements. Material reproduced from other sources must be attributed, and permission must be obtained where required. The journal's specific copyright, licensing, and open-access arrangements are described in its respective policies.

10. Publisher Responsibilities

The publisher supports editorial independence, research integrity, and the consistent implementation of publication ethics policies. The publisher must not improperly interfere with editorial decisions. When credible evidence of serious ethical violations arises, the publisher will work with the editorial team to determine appropriate action, which may include investigating concerns, preserving records, correcting the scholarly record, or contacting relevant institutions where justified.

11. Actions in Cases of Ethical Violations

When an ethical violation is suspected or established, the journal will assess the circumstances, seriousness, available evidence, and applicable policies before deciding on a response. Possible actions include requesting clarification or documentation, rejecting a submission, suspending consideration, contacting a relevant institution, publishing a correction or expression of concern, retracting an article, or restricting future submissions where justified.

Actions will be proportionate to the circumstances and consistent with applicable ethical guidance and institutional or legal requirements. A suspected violation will not automatically be treated as proven misconduct.

12. Contact the Editorial Office

To ask a question about this policy or report a publication ethics concern, contact the editorial office through the journal's official website. Reports should provide enough detail for the concern to be assessed. The journal will handle such reports with appropriate care, fairness, and confidentiality.

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.

Acknowledgment 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.