Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

  • Transportation Technology
  • Safety Transportation
  • Human Resources Development of Transportation
  • Innovative Teaching and Learning

Section Policies

Article

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Author biography

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Editting

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

 

Section Policies

Airman is committed to peer-review integrity and upholding the standards of review. Once your paper has been assessed for suitability by the editor, it will then be single-blind peer reviewed by independent, anonymous expert referees. Airman Review Guideline:

Step 1: Editorial assessment

Peer review follows a number of stages, beginning with submitting your article to a journal. At this first stage, the journal editor will decide if it’s suitable for the journal, asking questions such as: • Has the author followed the journal’s guidelines? • Is this the right journal for this article? • Will the journal’s readers find it interesting and useful? The editor might reject the article immediately, but otherwise it will move to the next stage, and into peer review.

Step 2: First round of peer review*

The editor will find and contact potential referees or other researchers or academics who are experts in your field. They will be asked to read your article, and advise the editor whether to publish your paper in that journal

Step 3: Revise and resubmit

You can then amend your article based on the reviewers’ comments, resubmitting it with any or all changes made. You may be asked to make further revisions or the paper may be rejected if the editor thinks that the revisions you have made are not adequate.

Peer Review Process

The submitted manuscript is first reviewed by an editor. It will be evaluated in the office, whether it is suitable for the Airman focus and scope or has a major methodological flaw and similarity score by using Turnitin. The manuscript will be sent to at least two anonymous reviewers (Double Blind Review). Reviewers' comments are then sent to the corresponding author for necessary actions and responses.

The suggested decision will be evaluated in an editorial board meeting. Afterward, the editor will send the final decision to the corresponding author. Utilizing feedback from the peer review process, the Editor will make a final publication decision. The review process will take approximately 4 to 12 weeks. Decision categories include:

  • Reject - Rejected manuscripts will not be published and authors will not have the opportunity to resubmit a revised version of the manuscript to the Journal of Innovation in Educational and Cultural Research.
  • Resubmit for Review– The submission needs to be reworked, but with significant changes, may be accepted. However, It will require a second round of review.
  • Accept with Revisions - Manuscripts receiving an accept-pending-revisions decision will be published in Airman under the condition that minor/major modifications are made. Revisions will be reviewed by an editor to ensure necessary updates are made prior to publication.
  • Accept - Accepted manuscripts will be published in the current form with no further modifications required.

Publication Frequency

Originally, published twice a year, in October and December. Issues #no 1 and issues #2

 

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.

 

Publication Fee

Based on the Decree of the Director of the Makassar Aviation Polytechnic Number Kp-Poltekbang.Mks 236 of 2021 concerning Revision of Service and Service Tariffs and Leases for the Use of Facilities and Infrastructure at the Makassar Aviation Polytechnic Public Service Agency.

This rate applies to articles published in the Airman Journal starting from Issue Volume 5 Number 2 December 2022. For article submissions that are declared accepted, or received with a revised status, an article submission fee of Rp. 500.000,-

Transferred to the BLU Management Fund Account

Bank BNI
Account No. 1507197142
RPL 054 ATKP MKS FOR BLU

 

Author guidelines

A. Originality

The submitted articles will be checked using Turnitin, and the result of Turnitin is not more than 25%. Articles that exceed normal similarity limits will need to be revised. If the article that has been published is proven to be plagiarized, the article will be withdrawn [retracted], and a retraction notice will be words/phrases on the article's page in the journal.

B. Article Format

Articles are preferably typed in Word files (Docx) on A4 size paper and should not exceed 10,000 words (minimum 4.500 words). It is recommended to use referencing manager software (i.e., Mendeley, Zotero, or Endnote). Please follow the article template here.

C. Article Structure

1. Title (must be engaging, clear, firm, avoiding report title style)

2. Authors' Names

3.  Authors' Email Addresses

4. Authors' Affiliations

5. Abstract

The abstract contains a brief description of the problem and research objectives, methods used, and the results of the research. The abstract must reflect the content of the article and should be focusing primarily on the research results. The abstract must be written in a single paragraph in English max 300 words.

6. KEYWORDS

Keywords need to be included to describe the realm of the issues, and the terms underlying the conduct of research. Keywords can be either single words or combinations of words (phrases). The number of keywords normally between 3 – 5 words. The keywords are required for computerization. Research and abstract title searches made easy with these keywords.

7. INTRODUCTION

The introduction must contain what the authors hoped to achieve and state the problem being investigated. The authors are encouraged to write the background of their articles in four (4) parts.

First, state the empirical or theoretical problem which is the basis of your research. This could be written in one or two paragraphs.

Second, provide recent studies in the area of your focus problem. These studies are needed to establish a state-of-the-art statement of your field of study and to identify the limitations of recent studies. This could be written in two or three paragraphs.

Third, identify the gap between the recent studies and the current empirical and theoretical aspects of your focused study. Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context and explain what other authors' findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. This could be written in one or two paragraphs.

Fourth, provide a theoretical basis related to the topics raised in the research.

Fifth, state your research question and research objectives based on the gap analysis presented in the previous paragraph. Furthermore, please state the novelty of your research. This could be written in one paragraph.

8. METHOD

In general, this section describes how the study was conducted. The subject matters of this section are: (1) the study design; (2) the sample population or subject of the research; (3) data collection techniques and instrument development; (4) and data analysis techniques. Please use descriptive paragraphs.

You can use these questions as a guideline to write the method: 1) Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? 2) Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? 3) Does the article identify the procedures followed? 4) Are these ordered in a meaningful way? 5) If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? 6) Was the sampling appropriate? 7) Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? 8) Does it clear what type of data was recorded? 9) Have you been precise in describing measurements?

It is important to note that you do not need to use too many formulas or tables unless it is absolutely necessary to be displayed.

9. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section is the main part of the article. This is where the author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. The results of the research presented in this section are the result of a clean

process of data analysis such as statistical calculations and testing processes or other processes for the achievement of its research. State the findings of the research concisely. If you want to display a table, use the following format.

Interpretation of results should not be included in this section unless the research required a combination of both findings and discussion in one section

This section is also a major part of the research articles and is also usually the longest part of an article. Discussion of the research presented in this section is the result of the process of data analysis such as statistical calculations or other processes for the achievement of its research. Please present the discussion narratively.

Use these questions as guidelines in formulating your synthesis/discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? 2) Have you indicated how the results relate to expectations and earlier research? 3)Does the article support or contradict previous theories?

11. CONCLUSIONS

This part consists of two (2) sub-parts: the conclusion of the article and suggestions or recommendations from the research. Conclude your article critically and logically based on the research findings. Please be careful in making generalizations of the findings. You should also state your research limitations in these parts. Generally, the conclusion should explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward. In your suggestion, please describe your recommendation for further studies regarding your research implication.

12. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

State the contributing parties or institutions which help your research. It is important to acknowledge those who help you in funding, research facilities, or meaningful suggestions in improving your article. If your article has been presented in a seminar or conference, you can also mention the forum in this section.

13. REFERENCES

You are strongly encouraged to use at least 20 references from journal articles (reputed international and national journal). The references, as well as in-text citation, must be written in APA 6th edition format. Please use reference manager software (i.e. Mendeley, Zotero, or Endnote). Otherwise, you need to make sure that each reference is cited properly in the body text, and vice versa.

The sources cited should at least 80% come from those published in the last 10 years. The sources cited are primary sources in the form of journal articles and research reports, including theses and dissertations.

Citations from journals should be at least 80% of the total references cited. Online and traceable sources are preferred. You must provide valid DOIs if the articles have DOIs.

APA Style is used for Airman. Below are the example taken from Finger Lakes Community Collage Charles J. Meder Library, State University of New York, New York (2017).

Book with Single Author:

Gire, A. (2006). An inconvenient truth: The planetary emergency of global warming and what
we can do about it. Emmaus, PA: Rodale.
In-text reference: (Gire, 2006)
If you quote directly from an author you need to include the page or paragraph number of
the quote in your in-text reference, for example:
In-text reference: (Gire, 2006, pp. 29-30)


Book with Two Authors: Mike, P. J., & Balling, R. C., Jr. (2000). The satanic gases: Clearing the air about global
warming. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.
In-text reference: (Mike & Balling, 2000)


Book with Editor as Author: Grady. K. E. (Ed.). (2004). Global climate change and wildlife in North America. Bethesda, MD: Wildlife Society.


In-text reference: (Grady, 2004)
Brochure or Pamphlet: New York State Department of Health. (2002). After a sexual assault. [Brochure]. Albany, NY: Art Press.
In-text reference: (New York, 2002)


An Anonymous Book:
Environmental resource handbook. (2001). Millerton, NY: Grey House.
In-text reference: (Environmental Resource Handbook, 2001)


Articles in Reference Books (unsigned and signed): Greenhouse effect. (2005). American heritage science dictionary. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Schneider, S. H. (2000). Greenhouse effect. World book encyclopedia (Millennium ed. Vol. 8, pp. 382-383). Chicago, IL: World Book.
In-text references: (Greenhouse effect, 2005)


Magazine Articles: Allen, L. (2004, August). Will Tuvalu disappear beneath the sea? Global warming threatens to swamp a small island nation. Smithsonian, 35(5), pp. 44-52. Begley, S., & Murr, A. (2007, July 2). Which of these is not causing global warming? A. Sport utility vehicles; B. Rice fields; C. Increased solar output. Newsweek, 150(2), pp. 48-50.
In-text references: (Begley, 2007; Murr, 2007)


Newspaper Articles (unsigned and signed): College officials agree to cut greenhouse gases. (2007, June 13). Albany Times Union, p. A4. Landler, M. (2007, June 2). Bush’s Greenhouse Gas Plan Throws Europe Off Guard.
New York Times, p. A7.
In-text references: (“College Officials”, 2007)


Journal Article with Continuous Paging: Miller-Rushing, A. J., Primack, R. B., Primack, D., & Mukunda, S. (2006). Photographs and herbarium specimens as tools to document phonological changes in response to global warming. American Journal of Botany, 93, pp. 1667-1674.
In-text reference: (Miller-Rushing, Primack, Primack, & Mukunda, 2006)


Journal Article when each issue begins with p.1: Bogdonoff, S., & Rubin, J. (2007). The regional greenhouse gas initiative: Taking action in Maine. Environment, 49(2), 9-16.
In-text reference: (Bogdonoff & Rubin, 2007)


Journal Article from a Library Subscription Service Database with a DOI (digital object
identifier): Mora, C., & Maya, M. F. (2006). Effect of the rate of temperature increase of the dynamic method on the heat tolerance of fishes. Journal of Thermal Biology, 31, pp. 337-341. doi: 10.101b/jtherbio.2006.01.055

In-text reference: (Mora & Maya, 2006)

Website: United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2007, May 4). Climate Change. Retrieved From the Environmental Protection Agency website: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange
In-text reference: (United States Environmental, 2007) Gelspan, R. (2007). The Heat Is Online. Lake Oswego, OR: Green House Network. Retrieved from The Heat Is Online website: http://www.heatisonline.org
In-text reference: (Gelspan, 2007)


Acknowledgment This APA Style is taken and modified from Finger Lakes Community Collage Charles J. Meder Library, State University of New York, New York (2017) and American Psychological Association (2017).

Copyright Notice

By submitting the manuscript of the article, the authors agree with this policy with no specific document sign-off required.

The authors certify that:

  • if the manuscript is co-authored, they are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
  • the work described has not been formally published before in a registered ISSN or ISBN media, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, or thesis.
  • it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
  • its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
  • they secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere (it does not infringe the rights of others).
  • they agree to AIRMAN license and copyright agreement.

All articles published by Ethical Lingua are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

License and Copyright Agreement

  1. Authors retain copyright and other proprietary rights related to the article.
  2. Authors retain the right and are permitted to use the substance of the article in their own future works, including lectures and books.
  3. Authors grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in Ethical Lingua. 
  4. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in Ethical Lingua.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post or self-archive their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party. However, due to the advancement and availability of hacking and data mining techniques found over the internet, we will not be able to guarantee that other parties will not mine our users' email addresses in any possible ways for other purposes.

 

Indexing

1. SINTA

2. ROAD

3. GARUDA (Garba Rujukan Digital)

4. Crossref

5. Google Scholar Index

6. Indonesia One Search by Perpusnas

7. Dimensions

 

Publication Ethics and Malpractices

Airman is a journal that 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 engineering and saftey transportation. The following statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal. This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Duties of Authors

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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

 

 

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.