Official Homepage: JSEALS on the University of Hawai‘i Press website
Articles are published and archived on: eVols, the University of Hawai‘i institutional repository.
This page presents the JSEALS Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement. The UH Press site serves as the journal’s official homepage, with the definitive record of journal scope, editorial board, and licensing information. This statement aligns with the University of Hawai‘i Press Journals Ethics Statement. 

The Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (JSEALS)

Statement of Publication Ethics (Updated 6 October 2026)

• JSEALS is the peer-reviewed journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (SEALS). JSEALS is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles. We require that Authors, Editors, and Reviewers conform to high standards of ethical behavior in all aspects of publication. We endorse the Committee on Publication Ethics (http://publicationethics.org) and their codes of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal publishers and editors where appropriate.

Below are descriptions of the ethical responsibilities of authors, editors, and reviewers.

Authors & Authorship

• Original work: Authors will ensure that their work is original work, and the work and/or words of others they have been used are appropriately acknowledged. This requires a complete and accurate list of references in works submitted for publication. Authors must verify that their manuscript is original and has not been simultaneously submitted elsewhere, in English or any language. Concurrent submissions with the same or overlapping contents to more than one journal constitutes unethical behavior (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/flowchart/concurrent-submissions-manuscript-multiple-journals). Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently without full disclosure to editors constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Malpractice, such as plagiarism and/or making fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements, constitutes unethical behavior and may prevent publication or, if published, result in the removal of a publication and exclude the author's future submissions from consideration.

• Authorship guidelines: A named author must have made a significant, identifiable contribution to at least two of the following: (1) formulating the research question or theoretical framework; (2) designing the analysis or methodology; (3) collecting, curating, or interpreting linguistic data; (4) carrying out the core analysis; and/or (5) writing major portions of the manuscript or substantially revising its argumentation. Activities that do not qualify for authorship include routine data collection, elicitation assistance, transcription, annotation, proofreading, formatting, or general supervision. These may be acknowledged but do not constitute authorship. Co-authors may not be added to articles after an article has been accepted by reviewers. If authors wish to add co-authors, their revised article will need to undergo a new round of reviews. The corresponding or main author must ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the work and its submission for publication.

• Original production: Authors must provide written confirmation that the work is their original output, that the work of others utilized by the author(s) has been acknowledged, that the data are authentic (i.e., sourcing of recorded data is acknowledged and invented examples noted as such), and that primary data collected by the author(s) was done so in a manner consistent with their home institution’s rules for ethical research.

• Artificial Intelligence Protocol: Regarding the use of AI tools in the writing process, the only acceptable uses are the editing of grammar, help with improving sentence clarity, or other basic language polishing. The core arguments, final analysis, and structure and main content of the article must be produced directly by the author(s) of an article. AI software may be used as part of data gathering, sifting, and preliminary analysis, but the author(s) must provide statements describing the use of such tools. Authors are responsible for verifying all referenced sources and making sure the sources are relevant to parts of their articles when AI is used in the research process.

• Expectations to make data available: All researchers are strongly encouraged to make data related to their research available to others with the goal of increasing the transparency of research findings and allowing replicability of their studies. Sharing this data also highlights the effort made in producing, gathering, and analyzing research materials.

• Working with editors and reviewers: Authors must cooperate during the peer review process fully and in good faith, to the satisfaction of editors and the Editorial Board. The Editor-in-Chief retains ultimate veto discretion over all publication outcomes.

• Disclosure of financial support: Authors must acknowledge all financial support, such as research grants, scholarships, or other types, that contributed to their manuscript submitted for publication. 

Editors

• Editors are appointed/approved by the annual SEALS business meeting to take responsibility and exercise authority to approve or reject works offered for publication.

• Editors should evaluate manuscripts objectively on the basis of their academic merit, having due regard to advice received from reviewers and other independent advice as appropriate.

• Editors have a responsibility to reject a manuscript where they have reasonable doubts about its veracity or the author’s intentions.

• Editors must take retrospective corrective action when malpractice has been identified. 

• Editors must deal with manuscripts in a timely manner and take every reasonable opportunity to avoid unnecessary delays in the processing of manuscripts. 

• An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

• Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

• In the event that malpractices are identified, editors will take appropriate actions. In the first place actions include issuing warnings and or rejection notices to authors, and in cases assessed to constitute deliberate malpractice, editors have the right to ban authors from further dealings. Where malpractice is detected after publication, works will be retracted and statements of retraction published in their place. All actions dealing with malpractice will be documented by the editors.

Reviewers

• Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

• Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

• Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper.

• Reviewers should identify relevant published work which is not cited or appropriately taken into account in the work.

• 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.

• 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. If reviewers are aware of a possible conflict of interest this must be discussed with the editor(s).

• Reviewers must deal with manuscripts in a timely manner and take every reasonable opportunity to avoid unnecessary delays in the processing of manuscripts.