Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The focus and scope of Simulacra covers the following areas of study of our current postmodern society: (1) digital culture, media and society; (2) urban, popular/mass culture and identity; (3) gender/race/ethnic based identity and education; (4) democracy, civil society and social movements; (5) social welfare and community development.


Section Policies


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

In the reviewing process, there are at least two peer-reviewers for each manuscript in the related topic. In addition, the author(s) can also propose the candidate of reviewers. Judgment from the first reviewer will be the main priority for the editor to make a decision if there are only two peer-reviewers. In the case of three reviewers, the decision will be made from at least two peer-reviewers. 

Generally, the candidate of reviewers will be chosen based on their reputation in the international publication number and quality. Next step, the editor send the invitation letter for each candidate of the reviewer. After the candidate of reviewer informed their availabilities for the reviewing process, the editor creates an account for each reviewer and then send the manuscript by OJS.

All reviewing process are in double blind peer-review and managed by editor in the OJS. 

After being reviewed, there will be four types of editor decision based on the reviewers’ recommendation:

1. Accept Submission: the submission will be accepted without revisions.
2. Revisions Required: the submission will be accepted after minor changes have been made.
3. Resubmit for Review: the submission needs to be re-worked, but with significant changes, may be accepted. It will require a second round of review, however.
4. Decline Submission: the submission will not be published in the journal.


The accepted manuscript will be available online following the journal peer-reviewing process.


Reviewer Guidelines

1. On receipt of the invitation to review, as a reviewer you should immediately:

a. Read the editor's transmittal e-mail, which includes the article abstract, to determine whether the subject is within your area of expertise and whether you can complete the review in the stated time period.
b. Click the link in the e-mail or directly log in to the Simulacra system and either accept or decline the invitation to review.

2. If you decline the invitation to review:

a. Indicate why you are declining.
b. If possible, please suggest a colleague who may be able to review the manuscript. If appropriate, the editor will send an invitation to review to that individual. You may not “transfer” your invitation to review the manuscript to a colleague.

3. If you accept the invitation to review, you will have access to the complete manuscript and should immediately:

a. Double-check the manuscript title page and the Acknowledgments section to determine whether there is any conflict of interest for you (with the authors, their institution, or their funding sources) and whether you can judge the article impartially.
b. Quickly skim the relevant portions of the manuscript and verify that it fits within the scope of the journal.

4. If you have either a time problem or a conflict of interest, contact the editor for instructions. He/she may extend your deadline or cancel the review assignment as appropriate.

5. If your cursory examination reveals that the manuscript does not fit within the scope of the journal, indicate that in the Comments to the Editor section of the review form.

6. The manuscript provided to you for review is a privileged document. Please protect it from any form of exploitation. Do not cite a manuscript or refer to the work it describes before it has been published and do not use the information that it contains for the advancement of your own research or in discussions with colleagues. Details of a manuscript and its review must remain confidential, before, during and after publication.

7. In your comments intended for the author, do not make statements about the acceptability of a paper (see the next paragraph). Suggested revisions should be stated as such and not expressed as conditions of acceptance. Organize your review so that an introductory paragraph summarizes the major findings of the article, gives your overall impression of the paper, and highlights the major shortcomings. This paragraph should be followed by specific, numbered comments, which, if appropriate, may be subdivided into major and minor points. (The numbering facilitates both the editor's letter to the author and evaluation of the author's rebuttal.) Criticism should be presented dispassionately; offensive remarks are not acceptable.

8. Adopt a positive, impartial, but critical attitude toward the manuscript under review, with the aim of promoting effective, accurate, and relevant scientific communication.

9. Please consider the following aspects when reviewing a manuscript:

a. Significance to the target scientific community
b. Originality
c. Appropriateness of the approach or experimental design
d. Appropriateness of the statistical analyses
e. Adherence to correct scientific nomenclature
f. Appropriate literature citations
g. Adequacy of experimental techniques
h. Soundness of conclusions and interpretation
i. Relevance of discussion
j. Organization
k. Adherence to the Instructions to Authors
l. Adequacy of title and abstract
m. Appropriateness of figures and tables
n. Appropriateness of supplemental material intended for posting (if applicable)
o. Length of the manuscript

10. You are not required to correct deficiencies of style, syntax, or grammar, but any help you can give in clarifying meaning will be appreciated. In particular, point out the use of scientific jargon, misspellings of chemical names, use of outmoded terminology or incorrect genetic nomenclature, and use of misspelled, incorrect, or outdated scientific names of organisms.

11. Your criticisms, arguments, and suggestions concerning the paper will be most useful to the editor and to the author if they are carefully documented. Do not make dogmatic, dismissive statements, particularly about the novelty of the work. Substantiate your statements. Reviewer's recommendations are gratefully received by the editor; however, since editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, reviewers should not expect the editor to honor every recommendation.

12. After completing your review, click the “Submit Review” button. You may want to save a copy of your review offline for your records. After successful completion of your review, it will be saved in the Simulacra's OJS system.


Publication Frequency

Simulacra is published twice a year in June and November since 2018. For every issue, there are nine original articles published both as a print and online edition.


Open Access Policy

This journal is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available immediately upon publication without any charge to users or institutions. This is in accordance with Budapest Open Access Initiative.

Our support as an organization for BOAI could be found here. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to full-text articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or author.



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.


Anti-Plagiarism Policy

We recommend authors to screen plagiarism before submitting an article to our journal. It makes sure the article is original.  Every article submitted to Simulacra is screened by Turnitin, a plagiarism detector software. If a manuscript has over 30% of plagiarism based on the result of the Turnitin check, we will send back the manuscript to the author to be revised for the plagiarised contents.


Article Processing Charges (APCs)

Simulacra charges the following author fees:

Article Submission Fee: 0.00 (IDR)

Article Publication Fee: 0.00 (IDR)

Authors can submit their manuscripts without any submission or publication fees to this journal. It's free of charge.


Publication Ethics

Simulacra is a peer-reviewed journal. This journal follows guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)  facing all aspects of publication ethics and, in particular, how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct.

This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewer­­­­­s and the publisher. 

Simulacra is dedicated to following best practices on ethical matters, errors, and retractions. The prevention of publication malpractice is one of the important responsibilities of the editorial board. Any kind of unethical behavior is not acceptable, and the journals do not tolerate plagiarism in any form.

Simulacra adapts COPE to meet the high-quality standard of ethics for publisher, editors, authors, and reviewers. As an essential issue, publication ethics needs to be explained clearly to improve the quality of the research worldwide. In this part, we explain the standard for editors, authors, and reviewers. Publisher doesn’t have the right to interfere with the integrity of the contents and only support to publish in a timely manner.

For Editors

Editors should consider these following statements:

  1. Based on the review report of the editorial review board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript.
  2. Editors should be responsible for every article published in Simulacra.
  3. The editors may communicate with other editors or reviewers in making the final decision.
  4. An editor has to evaluate the manuscript objectively for publication, judging each on its quality without looking to nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, religion, gender, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the authors. He/she should decline his/her assignment when there is a potential for conflict of interest.
  5. Editors need to ensure the document sent to the reviewer does not contain the information of the author, vice versa.
  6. Editors’ decision should be informed to authors accompanied by reviewers’ comments unless they contain offensive remarks.
  7. Editors should respect requests from authors that an individual should not review the submission if these are well-reasoned and practicable.
  8. Editors and all staffs should guarantee the confidentiality of the submitted manuscript.
  9. Editors will be guided by COPE flowcharts if there is a suspected misconduct or disputed authorship.

For Reviewers

Reviewers need to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct:

  1. Reviewers will do the work in a timely manner and should notify the editor if they can not complete the work.
  2. Reviewers need to keep the confidentiality of the manuscript.
  3. Reviewers should not accept to review the manuscripts in which there is a potential conflict of interest between them and any of the authors.

For Authors

Authors should consider these following statements:

  1. Author(s) affirm that the material has not been previously published and that they have not trans­ferred elsewhere any rights to the article.
  2. Author(s) should ensure the originality of the work and they have properly cited others’ work in accordance with the format of the references.
  3. Author(s) should not engage in plagiarism nor self-plagiarism.
  4. Author(s) should ensure that they follow the authorship criteria that are taken from Simulacra that is explained in instruction for the author of Simulacra.
  5. Authors should not 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 the same research in more than one journal.
  6. 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. 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.
  7. The author(s) haven’t suggested any personal information that may make the identity of the patient recognizable in any forms of description part, photograph or pedigree.
  8. Author(s) should give the editor the data and details of the work if there are suspicions of data falsification or fabrication.
  9. If at any point in time, the author(s) discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, then the error or inaccuracy must be reported to the editor.
  10. Authors of the journal should clarify everything that may cause a conflict of interests such as work, research expenses, consul­tant expenses, and intellectual property on the document of Simulacra form disclosure. 


The Editors of Simulacra make every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in its publications. However, the  Editors of Simulacra make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness or suitability for any purpose of the Content and disclaim all such representations and warranties whether express or implied to the maximum extent permitted by law. Any views expressed in this publication are the views of the authors and are not necessarily the views of the Editors of Simulacra.


License Terms

Simulacra has a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC-BY-NC-SA) or an equivalent license which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium. This license term is the optimal license for the publication, distribution, use, and reuse of scholarly work.

CLICK HERE for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.