Review

Peer-Review

 

1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

1.1. This Regulation defines the procedure and procedure for reviewing the author's originals of articles (materials) received by the editorial office of the journal "Asia-Pacific Region: Economics, Politics, Law" (hereinafter referred to as the journal).

1.2. Reviewing (expert evaluation) of manuscripts of scientific articles in the editorial office of the journal is carried out in order to ensure and maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the publication and in order to select the most valuable and relevant (promising) scientific works.

1.3. All materials submitted for publication in the journal are subject to review.

1.4. The following basic concepts are used in this Regulation:

An author is a person or a group of persons (a group of authors) participating in the creation of an article based on the results of scientific research.

The editor-in-chief is the person who heads the editorial office and makes the final decisions regarding the production and release of the magazine.

Plagiarism is the deliberate appropriation of the authorship of someone else's work of science or art, someone else's ideas or inventions. Plagiarism can be a violation of copyright, patent law and as such can lead to legal liability.

Editor - a representative of a scientific journal or publishing house, preparing materials for publication, as well as maintaining communication with authors and readers of scientific publications.

The editorial board is an advisory body from a group of influential persons who assists the editor-in-chief in the selection, preparation and evaluation of works for publication.

Reviewer - an expert acting on behalf of a scientific journal or publishing house and conducting a scientific examination of copyright materials in order to determine the possibility of their publication.

Peer review is a procedure for reviewing and expert assessment by reviewers of a scientific article proposed for publication in order to determine the appropriateness of its publication, to identify its advantages and disadvantages, which is important for improving the manuscript by the author and editorial staff.

2. ORDER OF INITIAL CONSIDERATION OF THE ARTICLE

2.1. The editorial board of the journal accepts for consideration articles and materials reflecting scientific views, results and achievements of fundamental and theoretical and applied research in the field of legal, economic and political sciences. Materials that do not correspond to the topics of the listed subject areas are not accepted for consideration.

2.2. An article is accepted for consideration by the editorial board of the journal, provided that it meets the requirements for copyright originals of articles (materials) posted on the journal's website, as well as in the current issues of the journal.

2.3. A file containing the following information should be sent to the editorial office in electronic form:

- the main text of the article, according to the specified heading, designed according to the model of the journal, no more than 20 pages of typewritten text, including a list of references;

- FULL NAME. (in full), academic degree and academic title, position, place of work - in Russian and English;

- title of the article, abstract (250-300 words), keywords (at least 20) - all in Russian and English;

- e-mail for communication with readers, UDC;

- a list of references (in Russian) and References (transliteration BSI, translated into English) - at the end of the article; be sure to indicate the total number of pages in the printed source.

The manuscript should be in 14 point type, Times New Roman.

2.4. The materials of the article should be open in nature. The presence of a restrictive stamp serves as the basis for rejecting the material from open publication.

2.5. Notification of the authors about the receipt of materials is carried out by the editor within 7 days.

2.6. The manuscript of a scientific article received by the editorial office of the journal is reviewed by the editor for compliance of the manuscript (article) with the requirements of the editorial board, the profile of the journal and the design rules. In case of non-compliance with the terms of publication, the article can be sent to the author for revision.

2.7. The article corresponding to the profile of the journal and the requirements for publication is registered by the editor in the register of manuscripts received by the editorial office, indicating the date of receipt, title, full name. author (s), place of work of the author (s) and is sent for review. 

3. ORDER AND PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPTS

3.1. All articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal undergo mandatory reviewing (expert assessment).

3.2. Scientists with a recognized authority and working in the field of knowledge to which the content of the manuscript belongs are involved in the review. The reviewer must have a doctorate or candidate of science degree.

3.3. Reviewers are obliged to follow the adopted Regulation on the ethics of scientific publications.

3.4. The journal has adopted a two-level system of reviewing articles:

1st level - checking the text of the article for the presence of borrowed text - is required for all articles. If the originality of the text is below 75% (while borrowings from one source cannot be more than 7%), the article is sent to the author for revision with appropriate justification. Borrowing from student work sites is not allowed.

Level 2 - two-way "blind" reviewing (double-blind - the author and the reviewer do not know about each other) - is mandatory for all articles. The reviewer assesses the article for the relevance of the topic and scientific novelty, as well as its structure and style of presentation. If the comments made by the reviewer are removable, then the article is sent to the author for revision. The editorial board of the journal reserves the right to refuse publication to the author who wishes to leave the comments of the reviewer without attention. The reviewer also has the right to conduct additional verification for the use of borrowings in the text of the publication by selectively copying parts of the text and checking through available Internet search engines.

The reviewer, together with the editorial board of the journal, can recommend an article for additional reviewing.

3.5. The period for reviewing in each individual case is determined taking into account the creation of conditions for the fastest possible publication of the article, but should not exceed 60 days from the date of receipt of the application for publication by the editorial board of the journal. The term may be increased if additional reviewing is required and / or the temporary absence of a profile reviewer, about which the author is notified. If the editorial board exceeds the specified period, the author has the right to withdraw the article, notifying the editorial board about it. The terms given to reviewers for preparing a review are set by agreement with each reviewer, but should not exceed 20 days.

Based on the results of peer review, the reviewer submits one of the following decisions for consideration by the editorial board and editorial board of the journal:

• recommend an article for publication;

• recommend the article for publication after revision / elimination of comments;

• does not recommend the article for publication.

3.7. If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after revision / elimination of comments or does not recommend the article for publication, the review should indicate specific reasons for such a decision with a clear formulation of substantive and / or technical deficiencies identified in the manuscript, indicating specific pages, if necessary. The comments and wishes of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript.

3.8. Reviewing of materials submitted to the editorial office of the journal is carried out in compliance with confidentiality, and the name of the reviewer is not disclosed to the author (s).

3.9. The originals of the reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years. At the request of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (Ministry of Education and Science), reviews are submitted to the Higher Attestation Commission and / or the Ministry of Education and Science.

3.10. For the publication of articles of graduate students and applicants for the scientific degree of candidate of sciences, the editorial board and the editorial board of the journal have the right, in addition to the above reviews, to demand the recommendation of the specialized department, which, however, does not exclude the usual procedure for reviewing.

4. DECISION ON PUBLICATION

4.1. After receiving the reviews at the next meeting of the editorial board, the issue of the articles received is considered and, based on the conclusions of the reviewers, a final decision is made to publish the article or refuse to publish it. The decision of the editorial board is made by a simple majority of votes. In case of equality of votes, the vote of the editor-in-chief is decisive. The quorum for making a decision is set at 50% of the total number of members of the editorial board.

4.2. When making a final decision to accept an article or refuse publication, the editorial board of the journal draws attention to the relevance of the scientific problem being solved by the author. The review should unambiguously characterize the theoretical or applied significance of the research, correlate the author's conclusions with existing scientific concepts. A necessary element of the review is the reviewer's assessment of the personal contribution of the author of the article to the solution of the problem under consideration. It is advisable to note in the review the correspondence of the style, logic and accessibility of the presentation to the scientific nature of the material, as well as the reliability and validity of the conclusions (the representativeness of the practical material involved in the analysis, the degree of illumination of the examples, tables, quantitative data, etc. given by the author, are assessed). The review ends with a general assessment of the article and a recommendation for publication, revision or reasoned rejection of the material.

4.3. Based on the decision taken, the author (s), on behalf of the editor, is sent a letter to the email address, which gives an overall assessment of the article and sets out the decision made regarding the materials submitted by the author (s).

4.4. If the article can be published after revision and elimination of comments, the letter gives recommendations on revision / removal of comments. The reviewers and the editorial staff of the journal do not enter into discussions with the authors of the article about the comments made.

4.5. An article sent by the author (s) to the editorial office after revision / elimination of comments is re-reviewed by the same reviewer or by another - appointed at the discretion of the editorial board.

4.6. If the article contains a significant share of the reviewer's critical remarks and with a general positive recommendation, the editorial board can classify the material as polemic and publish it as a scientific discussion.

4.7. In case of rejection of the article from publication, the editorial staff of the journal sends a reasoned refusal to the author within three working days.

An article not recommended by the reviewer for publication will not be accepted for reconsideration.

 

Publishing Ethics

 

1. Introduction

1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: “Pacific Rim: Economics, Politics, Law”

1.2. Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.

1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programs record «the minutes of science» and we recognize our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.

2. Duties of Editors

2.1. Publication decision – The Editor of a learned “Pacific Rim: Economics, Politics, Law” is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the “Pacific Rim: Economics, Politics, Law” journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.

2.2. Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

2.3. Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of “Pacific Rim: Economics, Politics, Law” must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

2.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest

2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.

2.5. Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.

2.6.Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.

3. Duties of Reviewers

3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

3.2. Promptness – 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 of “Pacific Rim: Economics, Politics, Law” and excuse himself from the review process.

3.3. Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.

3.4. Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – 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. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

3.6.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

3.6.2. 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.

4. Duties of Authors

4.1. Reporting standards

4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.

4.2. Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

4.3. Originality and Plagiarism

4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

4.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.

4.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

4.6. Authorship of the Paper

4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

4.7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

4.7.1. All authors should 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.

4.7.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

4.8. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of “Pacific Rim: Economics, Politics, Law” journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.

 

Founder

 

• Far Eastern Federal University (FEFU)

 

Author fees

 

Publication in “Pacific Rim: Economics, Politics, Law" is free of charge for all the authors.

The journal doesn't have any Article processing charges.

The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.

 

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

 

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. 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.

 

Plagiarism detection

"Pacific Rim: Economics, Politics, Law" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.

Preprint and postprint Policy

 

Prior to acceptance and publication in "Pacific Rim: Economics, Politics, Law", authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.

As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in "Pacific Rim: Economics, Politics, Law" we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.

Glossary (by SHERPA)