About the Journal
PAPUA terbit pertama kali pada tahun 2009. Edisi No.1/Juni 2009 yang berisi informasi pengetahuan mengenai pengelolaan sumberdaya budaya (cultural resource management).
Focus and Scope
Papua : Jurnal Penelitian Arkeologi Papua dan Papua Barat is aims to be a peer-reviewed platform and an authoritative source of information. We publish scientific writing in the form of research, reviews, studies, and conceptual or theoretical thinking in the fields of Indonesian archeology and culture. All papers are peer-reviewed by at least two referees. Papua is managed to be issued twice in every volume. The Scope of Papua Journal is:
- Pre History
- Cultural Studies
|Open Submissions||Indexed||Peer Reviewed|
Peer Review Process
Reviewers or Mitra Bestari of Papua are competent in the fields of Indonesian archeology and cultural heritage and are able to work professionally by upholding the ethical code of scientific publications as reviewers. The peer-review process of Papua's manuscript, is as follows:
1. Peer-reviewers review manuscripts in accordance to their scientific background. If the manuscript does not comply with peer-reviewers’ proficiency, the peer reviewer is entitled to refuse to review a manuscript and transfer to other reviewers who are more competent;
2. The review process uses a double-blind review, i.e. the reviewer does not know the identity of the author, and vice versa;
3. The process of reviewing one manuscript is done by at least two reviewers and steps of the process follows the E-Journal system;
4. Reviewers review the manuscript within a maximum period of 2 weeks after the manuscript is submitted online. The review process is based on the substance (quality) of the manuscript, among others,
- to review whether the title, background, questions, objective, theory, methods, discussion, and conclusion in accord to each other;
- to review the clarity of images and tables;
- to review the updated references used in the manuscript;
- to review the validity of facts;
- to evaluate the contents of manuscript;
- to review the originality of information;
- to review whether the manuscript was published elsewhere
- to review the comprehensiveness of the author's knowledge
1. If the review of the manuscript has not been completed within 4 weeks, the reviewer must confirm to the Editor in Chief for the delay;
2. During the review process, the reviewer provides assessments by filling in a review form/checklist available online. If it is difficult to access the website, reviewers can manually fill in the form/checklist in MS.Word format sent by a Section Editor or the Secretariat
3. The reviewed manuscript is returned to the corresponding Section Editor or the Secretariat;
4. Reviewers make decision on the reviewed manuscript:
- Accept Submission
- Revisions Required
- Resubmit for Review
- Resubmit Elsewhere
- Decline Submission
- See Comments
Papua published twice a year, at June and November. E-journal edition published earlier than the print edition.
Open Access Policy
This journal 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.
PAPUA Journal by Balai Arkeologi Papua is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://jurnalarkeologipapua.kemdikbud.go.id.
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...
PAPUA is a journal aims to be a leading peer-reviewed platform and an authoritative source of information. We publish original research papers, review articles and case studies focused on mechatronics, electrical power, and vehicular technology as well as related topics that has neither been published elsewhere in any language, nor is it under review for publication anywhere. This following statement clarifies ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the editor, the reviewer, and the publisher Balai Arkeologi Papua. This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Duties of Authors
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
Plagiarism screening will be conducted by PAPUA Editorial Board using Grammarly® Plagiarism Checker and searching with Indonesia One Search, Google Scholar, etc
Article Processing Charges
Every article submitted to Papua will not have any 'Article Processing Charges'. No charges for submitting, peer-reviewing, editing, publishing, maintaining and archiving, and allows immediate access to the full-text versions of the articles.
Every article submitted to Papua shall use reference management software e.g. Mendeley or EndNote® .
Papua has been accredited by Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI)716/Akred/P2MILIPI/ 04/2016.
Papua has been accredited by by Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education Republic of Indonesia (RISTEK/BRIN) number: 30/E/KPT/2018 since October 2018. Valid thru: November 2020