Table of Contents
Ⅱ. Terms of Reference for JUL Editorial Board
Ⅲ. Ethics Standards for the Institute
Ⅳ. Publication Policies
Ⅴ. Review Policies
Ⅵ. Guidelines for Submitting Manuscripts
Ⅰ. Institute Policies
The Language Research Institute at Sejong University was founded for theoretical and practical research on various modes of language usage as well as to provide a forum for discussions on the nature of language. In order to accomplish this goal, the Institute undertakes the following functions:
Publication of the Journal of Universal Language
The institute biannually publishes an international research journal, Journal of Universal Language, to develop communication skills among different language speaking countries and help them to communicate efficiently. Following the May 1996 inaugural issue of the journal, the second issue was published in May 2001. Since then the journal has been published biannually.
To offer an opportunity for the exchange of ideas between researchers of various viewpoints, we occasionally hold seminars on language-related areas including linguistics, artificial languages, communication & culture in language usage, typology, and universality in language.
We contract other scholars and academic societies in Korea and abroad to exchange databases and academic resources.
Ⅱ. Terms of Reference for JUL Editorial Board
The Editorial Board of the Journal of Universal Language is established to advise the Editor-in-Chief and editorial staff on all matters relating to the success of the journal and encourage to contribute substantively to the Journal of Universal Language.
The Editorial Board is responsible for the following:
1. The regular and timely production of the professional journal in order to extend knowledge, improve and facilitate communication in the field of language and other related areas. Editorial Board members work actively to solicit contributions, identify suitable reviewers, participate as reviewers, provide input on the content and direction of issues, and promote the journal extensively.
2. The quality of the reviewer panel.
3. Ensuring that submissions to the journal are dealt with fairly and objectively and that the review policies for reviewers are followed.
4. Developing publishing policies to guide the content, scope, purpose, and style of the journal and ensuring that each edition of the journal is reviewed in accordance with the journal.
Members and Appointment
1. The Editorial Board shall consist of approximately 15 members, including Editor-in-Chief. Members of the Editorial Board shall serve for three years and may be reappointed. Members shall be chosen in accordance with the following criteria:
(1) Members of the Editorial Board shall have made excellent achievements in various language research fields.
(2) Members of the Editorial Board shall be representative of professionals affiliated with universities or research institutions in localities covered by the journal’s scope.
2. The Editor-in-Chief shall be appointed by the publisher with the approval of the JUL Editorial Board. The Editor-in-Chief shall serve for three years and may be reappointed.
The Editorial Board normally meets electronically and as required to fulfill its terms of Reference..
Ⅲ. Ethics Standards for the Institute
These guidelines aim at regulating issues that could occur with publication of the Journal of Universal Language. The followings are formal regulations that apply to editors, authors, and reviewers to maintain the highest ethical standard relating to the publication of manuscripts in the Journal of Universal Language by the Language Research Institute, Sejong University.
A. Ethical Obligations of the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Staff
1. The Editor-in-Chief has complete responsibility and authority to accept a submitted paper for publication or to reject it. The Editor-in-Chief may delegate this responsibility to the editorial staff, who shall confer with reviewers for an evaluation to use in arriving at a decision.
2. The editors should give unbiased consideration to all manuscripts offered for publication, judging each on its merits without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).
3. A close collaborator or colleague of the author(s) cannot be selected as a reviewer. More specifically, reviewers should not be at the same institute as any of the authors listed on the manuscript.
4. The editor shall ensure that submitted manuscripts are handled in a confidential manner, with no details being disclosed to anyone, with the exception of the referees, without the permission of the author, until a decision has been taken as to whether the manuscript is to be published.
5. The editor shall ensure the confidentiality of the names and other details of peer reviewers except in cases involving adjudication and appeal, during which reviewers’ names may be revealed if appropriate.
6. The editor shall respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
7. Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations disclosed in a submitted manuscript will not be used in an editor’s own research except with the consent of the author.
8. Editorial responsibility and authority for any manuscript authored by the editor and submitted to the journal shall be delegated to a qualified person. The editor should avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest. If the editor chooses to participate in an ongoing scientific debate within his journal, the editor should arrange for a qualified person to take editorial responsibility.
9. If the editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of a paper published in the journal are erroneous, the editor should facilitate publication of an appropriate paper pointing out the error and, if possible, correct it.
10. The editor shall deal fairly with an author’s appeal against the rejection of a submitted manuscript.
B. Ethical Obligations of Authors
1. Authors must ensure they have written and produced entirely original work and ensure that where they have used the work and/or words of others, this has been properly attributed and accurately quoted.
2. Authors shall not engage in plagiarism—the appropriation of the ideas, research processes, results, or words of other people without giving appropriate credit. All sources shall be disclosed, and if a significant amount of other people’s material is to be used, permission must be sought by the author in accordance with copyright law. Authors should not engage in self-plagiarism. Material quoted verbatim from the author’s previously published work must be placed in quotation marks. It is unacceptable for an author to include significant verbatim or near-verbatim portions of his/her work, or to depict his/her previously published results or methodology as new, without acknowledging the source.
3. Authors shall not use privately obtained information (for example, information obtained through conversation), or information obtained through the performance of a confidential service (for example, reviewing a manuscript), without permission from the person from whom the information originated.
4. Authors shall strive to revise their manuscript in accordance with the feedback and suggestions provided by the reviewers and/or the editor during the review and journal editing process. If the authors disagree with a requested revision, they shall provide relevant evidence and justification for not making the requested change.
5. Authors have rights concerning their own research and work, and the works are recognized as their own achievements. Upon submission of an article by the Journal, the authors will be asked to transfer copyright of the article to the publisher. The copyright covers the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the article, including reprints, photographic reproductions, microfilm, or any other reproduction of similar nature, and translations.
6. Authors must limit authorship to and including all those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the work, and ensure all contributors have approved the final version of the manuscript and its submission to the Journal. JUL follows the recommendations and criteria for authorship by ICMJE as below:
[Criteria to Be an Author]
● All those designated as authors should meet the following four criteria for authorship:
- ① Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work
- ② Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content
- ③ Final approval of the version to be published
- ④ Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
● Authors should not only be accountable for the parts of the work they have done, but also be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work.
- - Authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.
● Conversely, all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors.
- - These authorship criteria are intended to reserve the status of authorship for those who deserve credit and can take responsibility for the work. The criteria are not intended for use as a means to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criterion numbers ② or ③.
- -Therefore, all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript.
● Researchers who conduct the work are responsible for identifying who meet these criteria.
- - Ideally, they should identify who meet these criteria when planning the work, making modifications as appropriate as the work progresses.
- - It is the collective responsibility of all contributors to determine the sequence of the authors.
[The Criteria of the Corresponding Author]
● The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process.
- - They typically ensure that all the journal’s administrative requirements are met (*).
- * Examples: providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and gathering conflict of interest forms and statements, etc.
● The corresponding author should be available throughout the submission and peer-review process to respond to editorial queries in a timely way.
- - They should respond to critiques of the work and cooperate with any requests from the journal for the data or additional information after publication.
● Contributors who meet fewer than all four of the above criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should be acknowledged.
- ※ Examples of non-author contributors' activities: acquisition of funding, general supervision of a research group, general administrative support, writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, proofreading, etc.
● Those whose contributions do not justify authorship may be acknowledged under a single heading such as clinical investigators, or participating investigators.
- ※ Contributors’ contributions should be specified such as “served as scientific advisors,” “critically reviewed the study proposal,” “collected data,” “provided and cared for study patients".
● Since, acknowledgement may imply endorsement by acknowledged individuals of a study’s data and conclusions, editors are advised to require that the corresponding author obtain written permission to be acknowledged from all acknowledged individuals.
7. Authors who wish to involve minors (age under 19) or their family members (spouse, offspring, relatives, and so on) should notify their personal connections to the journal.
8. Should any author with personal connections be found to be in breach of the ethical obligations, JUL will report the misconduct to the related institution where the author has taken advantage.
C. Ethical Obligations of Reviewers
1. Reviewers shall contribute to the decision-making process, and assist in improving the quality of papers by following the review policies, completing the review within the designated time frame, and submitting the review results to the editor.
2. Reviewers shall respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
3. Reviewers shall conduct the review objectively and avoid personal criticism of the author.
4. Reviewers shall treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It shall neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor. Reviewers shall not use unpublished information contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author.
5. Reviewers shall alert the editor of any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review.
6. A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript must return it promptly to the editor.
7. Reviewers shall not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript.
8. Reviewers shall explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Unsupported assertions by reviewers are of little value and should be avoided.
9. Reviewers shall review manuscripts with reasonable speed and efficiency. Reviewers should respond promptly, usually within 14 days of receipt of a manuscript. If reviewers need more time, they can contact the editor promptly so that authors can be kept informed and, if necessary, assign alternate reviewers.
D. Procedures for Dealing with Unethical Behavior
1. Should any author be found to be in breach of the ethical obligations, the journal reserves the right to reject/retract or withdraw the paper, decline further submissions from the offending authors for a period of three to five years and inform all interested parties including relevant journal editors and authors and the author’s department head. Should any reviewers be found to be in breach of the ethical obligations, the journal reserves the right to permanently remove the offending reviewers from the database.
2. Misconduct and unethical behaviour shall be identified and brought to the attention of the editor or publisher at any time, by anyone.
3. Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct shall provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.
4. The authors or reviewers shall fully and faithfully cooperate in investigations into possible breaches of the ethics standards.
5. In the instance of a violation of ethics standards, the journal shall conduct an ethics committee meeting. The ethics committee consists of five board members, and the Editor-in-Chief serves as the ethics committee chair. The ethics committee members are appointed by the executive officers of the Language Research Institute. The term of office is three years and committee members can be reappointed for the next term. Decisions will be made upon a majority vote of the enrolled committee members.
6. Upon determination, disciplinary action will be immediately taken against those found to be violating in their obligations, as per the above guidelines, by the executive officers of the Language Research Institute. Disciplinary action will take the following course (in increasing order of severity; may be applied separately or in conjunction):
- (1) Verbal or documented warning.
- (2) Prohibition of submission of papers for an agreed upon duration.
- (3) Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
- (4) Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer’s department or institution, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.
- (5) Disqualification of position as Editorial Board member or editor
7. General issues which are not specified here follow standard customs.
Ⅳ. Publication Policies
1. The Journal of Universal Language is published biannually (in spring and fall) in English by the Language Research Institute at Sejong University.
2. The spring and fall editions are published on March 31 and September 30, respectively.
3. Manuscript submissions are accepted year-round.
4. The topic of a paper contributed for the journal should relate to any language. The journal is structured to include
- (1) work on language universality, language typology, and/or artificial languages;
- (2) interdisciplinary contributions written with applied linguists in mind;
- (3) reaction/replies to recent papers.
5. Submission of a paper to the journal will be taken to imply that it represents original work not previously published, that is not being considered elsewhere for publication, and that, if accepted for publication, it will not be published anywhere without the consent of the Editor-in-Chief.
6. At the time of submission, authors will be asked to transfer copyright of the article to the Publisher by submitting a formal written transfer of copyright. Authors will be also asked to complete an author information & declaration form.
7. If a paper is found to be acceptable with partial revisions, the author must make the appropriate revisions, and resubmit the paper to the editor. If he is unwilling to comply with the editor’s recommendations, the author must present a letter to the Editorial Board stating the reasons for noncompliance.
8. If a paper requires resubmission after major revisions, the author must revise and resubmit it for a review for the next issue.
9. Additional Policies
- (1) Authors will be properly notified of acceptance or rejection within 60 days of the submission of manuscripts.
- (2) Manuscripts, once submitted, shall not be returned.
- (3) Authors are required to provide their affiliation, position, and contact information
Ⅴ. Review Policies
1. Each submitted manuscript shall be subject to peer review by at least two reviewers from a relevant field of study. Reviewers shall be appointed by the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers must use the Review Criteria given below, using the Review Process established by the Editorial Board. Publication of manuscript is determined by approval of two reviewers in most circumstances. If two reviewers approve a manuscript as is or with minor revisions, the editorial staff will examine the scope of the paper for adequate fit with the theme of the journal―language universality, language typology, and/or artificial languages. From that, the Editor-in-Chief finally decides whether it is to be published or not, and gives final notification to the author within 4 weeks after submission in normal circumstances. In cases of controversy or strong disagreement regarding the submitted work, an additional review will be also solicited.
2. A manuscript can be rejected out-of-hand if the English is so poor that it cannot be understood or if there are unusually large sections in an untranslated language other than English. Language correction is not part of the peer review process.
The set of Review Criteria used for the peer review is given below.
1. Pertinence of Theme
Each submission is to deal with language universality, language typology, artificial languages, and/or communication & culture in language usage. Submissions linked with general linguistics or other related disciplines shall be considered for publication only when they present explicit implications for language universality, language typology, artificial languages, and/or communication & culture in language usage.
2. Overall Quality and Scientific Originality
Reviewers need to take into account the quality of the literature and its impact on findings. Each submission shall have to be based on original and creative research, the results of which have not been published in other journals.
3. Clarification and Validity of Arguments
Reviewers should discuss and substantiate the rigor, trustworthiness, reliability of the arguments and analysis. Reported results shall be consistent with methods used. For quantitative research, every significant value of all variables should be mentioned and explained. For qualitative research, a clear picture must explain how the results are derived from the data collected.
4. Appropriateness of Research Methods
Each submission is to be based on appropriate research methodology in terms of research questions and design, data source, sampling, procedures, and analysis. The author shall have to explain the reliability of data, that is, make it clear what type of data and how the data was collected.
5. Organization and Structure
Each submission is to be concise and well organized. The title has to clearly describe the article. The abstract shall reflect the content of the article, and the introduction should accurately describe what the author hoped to achieve and clearly state the problem being investigated. The results should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. The conclusion should explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward.
1. Upon receipt of an electronic submission, the Editor-in-Chief shall examine and classify the manuscript according to its field, then establish a panel of two reviewers for the purpose of reviewing that submission, and subsequently send the submission to the reviewers along with the Review Criteria and a review form. Any indications of the name(s) and affiliation(s) of the author(s) are removed from the manuscript.
2. Each reviewer shall evaluate the assigned manuscript according to the following four categories:
- (1) Article to be published without any revisions
- (2) Article to require minor revisions before publication
- (3) Article to be resubmitted after major revisions
- (4) Article to be rejected
3. In the case of suggesting revisions, the reviewer shall give clear directions specifying which parts of the manuscript should be revised.
4. After each reviewer conducts their review, they shall return their review report to the Editor-in-Chief. The review report shall include the rating of the submission, the reviewer’s specific comments and suggestions.
5. The Editor-in-Chief and the editorial staff shall go over the review reports, and if both reviewers approve a manuscript as is or with minor revisions, the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial staff shall examine its scope to see if it fits the theme of the journal and finally decide whether it is to be published or not. In cases of controversy or strong disagreement regarding the submitted work, an additional review will be also solicited.
6. In case of suggesting minor revisions the reviewer shall give clear directions specifying which parts of the manuscript should be revised. When submitting a revised manuscript, authors should include the following items with their revised submission. Normally 1 week is given for revision.
- • Response to reviewers: Address the specific points made by each reviewer. Include author’s responses to all the reviewers’ and editors’ comments and list the changes you have made to the manuscript.
- • Revised manuscript (marked-up copy): Include a marked-up copy of your manuscript file showing the changes you have made since the original submission. The best way to show these changes is the “Track Changes” option in Microsoft Word.
- • Revised manuscript (clean copy): Upload a clean copy of your revised manuscript that does not show your changes.
7. The Editor-in-Chief shall notify the author(s) of the review result by sending the review reports (and an annotated manuscript). A manuscript rated as “Article to be re-submitted after major revisions” shall be reviewed for the next issue if it is revised and submitted again. The revised and resubmitted manuscript shall go through the same review procedure stipulated herein.
8. Review process is normally completed within 4 weeks of paper submission and the Review Form which includes the ratings of the submission, the reviewer’s specific comments and suggestions will be sent to the authors.
9. Appeal Policy: If you wish to appeal the decision on the manuscript, you should send a letter of appeal to the editor of the Journal of Universal Language at firstname.lastname@example.org. The appeal must be filed within a week of receiving the final decision letter. The letter of appeal should be two pages or less, in Word or PDF form. The appeal letter should include the specific error that was made by the editor and/or reviewers and provide conclusive evidence that the specific error identified was, in fact, an error.
The editor will review the letter of appeal and will respond with a decision about whether to accept or reject the appeal. The editor's decision is final. If an author submits an appeal that is subsequently rejected, that author forfeits the opportunity to submit any new appeals for the duration of the editor's term. If the appeal is accepted, the editor will decide on an appropriate disposition of the manuscript, which may be to accept or conditionally accept the manuscript, to request further revision.
Ⅵ. Guidelines for Submitting Manuscripts
Contributions are welcomed from all countries. When submitting a manuscript for consideration, we ask that authors consider a few basic guidelines. They are designed simply to allow our reviewers to work on the manuscript with minimum complications.
There is no limit on article length, but manuscripts longer than 40 pages (including footnotes and references) are not encouraged. At the time of submission of a manuscript, authors will be asked to identify their affiliations and positions, but the manuscript will be sent for review with the name(s) of author(s) removed.
Authors have right concerning their own research and work, and the works are recognized as their own achievements. Upon submission of an article, the authors will be asked to submit Copy Transfer Agreement and Author Information & Declaration and to transfer copyright of the article to the publisher. The copyright covers the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the article, including reprints, photographic reproductions, microfilm, or any other reproduction of similar nature, and translations.
An abstract of approximately 200 words and a list of 4 to 8 keywords should immediately follow the title. The abstract should briefly explain and summarize the salient aspects of the content. Also it should be accurate and succinct, self-contained, and readable.
1. If there are three or more authors, the corresponding author should be mentioned last.
2. Authors’ names should be written in full, not as initials.
1. Authors should use quadruple space between sections.
2. Authors should use the following section numbers for headings: 1., 1.1., 1.1.1.,… 2, 2.1., 2.1.1.,…
3. Section numbers should start with I (not 0). If the article has a short introduction (one to three paragraphs), authors should not give it a number or a title. A longer introduction may have a number as well as a title.
4. Authors should include titles for sections and subsections, following the capitalization conventions for English listed in The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed., 2010, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois). Type the numbers and titles in roman type.
1. Authors should indent quotations with quotation marks.
2. Authors should not hyphenate words containing prefixes unless a misreading will result; hyphenate if the stem begins with a capital letter: Proto-Athabaskan.
3. Authors should indicate ellipsis with three periods, close set, with a blank space before and after.
Abbreviations should be explained at first occurrence.
1. All notes to the body of the text should be numbered serially throughout the manuscript.
2. Reference should be made for each footnote in the text with a raised numeral following the relevant passage, not enclosed in parenthesis.
3. Authors should type all notes to the body of the text as footnotes.
4. Authors should place any acknowledgement footnote at the end of the title of the paper, keyed with a section symbol.
5. Each footnote begins with as a raised reference number (no punctuation).
1. The author should type each numbered item on a separate line with the number in parenthesis; use lowercase letters to group sets of related items:
- (1) a. Jack and Jill ran up the hill.
- b. Jack and Jill ran up the bill.
- c. *Jack and Jill ran the hill up.
- d. Jack and Jill ran the bill up.
2. Authors should refer to numbered items as (1), (1a), (1a, c), (1a-d) in the text.
Glosses and Translations of Examples
Examples not in English must be translated or glossed appropriately. Sometimes, both a translation and a word-for-word or morpheme-by-morpheme gloss are appropriate.
1. Authors should place the translation or gloss of an example sentence or phrase on a new line below the example.
2. Authors should align word-for-word or morpheme-by-morpheme glosses of example phrases or sentences with the beginning of each original word.
3. Authors should observe the following conventions in morpheme-by-morpheme glosses:
3.1. Place a hyphen between morphemes within words in the original, and a corresponding hyphen in the gloss.
3.2. Abbreviate glosses for grammatical categories and list the abbreviations in a note.
1. In the text, a reference identified by means of an author’s name should be followed by the date of the reference in parenthesis and page number(s) where appropriate.
2. When there are more than three authors, only the first author’s name should be mentioned, followed by ‘et al’.
3. In the case that an author cited has had two or more works published during the same year, the reference, both in the text and in the reference list, should be identified by a lowercase letter such as ‘a’ and ‘b’ after the date to distinguish the works.
Dowty (1980: 32)
Farmer & Harnish (1987)
Couturat et al. (1903)
Hausser (2001a, 2001b)
Authors should provide a full bibliography at the end of the manuscript with the heading References. In addition, authors should adhere to the following guidelines:
1. Arrange the entries alphabetically by surnames of authors.
2. List multiple works by the same author in ascending chronological order.
3. Use suffixed letters a, b, c, etc. to distinguish more than one item published by a single author in the same year.
4. Replace given names with initials: Lehiste, I., but Lehiste, Ise.
5. Be sure that each entry contains the following elements in the order given:
(First) author’s surname, initial(s). Year of publication. Full title and subtitle of the work. For a journal article: full name of the journal, and volume and issue number, inclusive page numbers for the entire article. For an article in a book: In [initial(s) and surname(s) of editor(s)] (eds.), title of the book, inclusive page numbers. For books: the edition, volume or part number (if applicable) and series title (if any). Place of publication: Publisher.
6. Use the following examples as guides:
Poser, W. 1978. Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Berkeley Linguistics Society 4.1, 157-189.
Yip, M. 1991. Coronals, Consonant Clusters, and the Coda Condition. In C. Paradis & J. Prunet (eds.), The Special Status of Coronals: Internal and External Evidence 61-78. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
7. In some languages, such as Finnish, French, and Estonian, capitalize only the first letter of the initial word in the title, unlike English.
Tables and Figures
1. Tables and figures must all be labeled with numbered captions that clearly identify and describe them.
2. Column headings should be center aligned; column entries should be centered or left aligned; numeral entries should be right aligned.
3. It is the author’s responsibility to provide a camera-ready copy for all figures. Figures should be accompanied by a separately typed list of figure numbers and captions.