- Peer Review Process
- Open Access Policy
- Indexing, Abstracting, Citation, Archiving
- Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice
Peer Review Process
The 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.
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. The Journal adheres to the principle that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing. The Journal reviewers are qualified experts in their field and should have no conflict of interest in connection with peer-review.
The Journal adheres to a single-blind reviewing policy in which the identity of the reviewers is always concealed. This guarantees the unbiased motivated reviews and assures a freedom for critical comments concerning the content of the articles to be published.
Any manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
In general, the decision-making process usually takes about two months. Within this period, peer reviewers independently make a recommendation to the Journal Editor as to whether the manuscript should be rejected or accepted (with or without revisions). Reviewers use the following form [blank, doc], for their peer-review. The Editor considers all the feedback from peer reviewers and makes an informed decision to accept or decline the manuscript.
The reviews are preserved by the publisher and the editorial board for 5 years. The editorial board is obliged to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon receiving of a corresponding request.
In the case that the manuscript is declined, the Editor provides its author with a grounded conclusion containing the reasons behind the rejection. Thereafter one of the following four decisions is made:
- to accept manuscript for publication without further development by author;
- to accept manuscript for publication after its development by author;
- to send manuscript for a profound development and then, to reviewers;
- to reject publication of manuscript.
Open Access Policy
The Journal is published online (Open Access). The access to the materials of the Journal’s website is open immediately after the publication of the issue. One can post them on other Internet sites with due reference to the website of the Journal.
By ‘open access’ we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.
Indexing, Abstracting, Citation, Archiving
Since 2019, the materials of the Journal have been placed and archived in the Scientific Electronic Library eLIBRARY.RU digital archive, and are taken into account in the Russian Science Citation Index.
Included in Russian Scientific Digital Library “CyberLeninka.ru”.
Starting 2022, all articles, which have been published in the Journal are included into Zenodo repository. Zenodo is an open-access repository developed under the European OpenAIRE program and operated by CERN.
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice
The Editorial Board of the Journal is committed to the values of research reputation and high standards of publication activities. The editorial staff takes into account the best international and Russian publishing practices. The Editorial Board of the Journal in its activities is guided by generally accepted in the international scientific community standards of editorial and publishing ethics, peer review and authorship of scientific publications, which are enshrined in the Declaration of the Association of scientific editors and publishers (ASEP), and in recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and Publishing Ethics Resource Kit for editors (PERK) developed by Elsevier publisher.
The Editorial Board of the Journal takes as a premise that authors and peer reviewers are familiar with the authors’ ethical principles and peer review ethical principles reflected in the abovementioned documents and the recommendations of the Committee.
By submitting a manuscript the author confirms that he/she possesses author’s rights for it, as well as agrees to comply with the Criteria of Authorship and Authors’ Ethical Principles.
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works. If the authors have used the work or a part of works of other authors, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
As a supervisor of the single-blind peer review process, the Editorial Board is obliged to provide for conditions excluding any conflict of interests between the sides. Author or co-author of the reviewed work cannot act as reviewer, as well as scientific supervisor of scientific degree candidates.
The Journal denounces all forms of publication malpractice, including plagiarism, duplicate submission, misappropriation of research results and fraud. Plagiarism in all its 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), constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. In each of these cases preparation manuscript can be recalled from the Journal.
The Journal ensures the integrity and transparency of each published article. In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism the publisher will take all appropriate measures, including the prompt publication of a correction statement or, in the most severe cases, the retraction of the affected work.
As part of its ethical code the Editorial Board of the Journal is bound by the principle of confidentiality regarding individual articles under review or in the process of publication, as well as their authors and peer-reviewers. The Editorial Board will require the same level of ethical awareness from it peer-reviewers.
The Journal does not accept any payments or fees for article submission, processing, or publication. Any attempt by authors or other interested parties to offer such payment could result in rejection of the submitted manuscript.
Published articles may not represent the point of view of the Founders, Editorial Council or Editorial Board.
It is important to clarify the expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society.
The following is the description of each role in the journal:
Section A: Publication and authorship
All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper.
Review process are blind peer review.
The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language.
The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
Section B: Authors’ responsibilities
Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
Authors must participate in the peer review process.
Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.
Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities
Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author
Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Reviewers should not review 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.
Section D: Editors’ responsibilities
Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
Editors should have a clear picture of a research’s funding sources.
Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers’ importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication’s scope.
Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.
Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.
1) Journal policies on authorship and contributorship
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made substantial contributions should be listed as co-authors.
Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the paper (e.g. language editing or medical writing), they should be recognised in the acknowledgements section.
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.
Authors are expected to consider carefully the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. Only in exceptional circumstances will the Editor consider (at their discretion) the addition, deletion or rearrangement of authors after the manuscript has been submitted and the author must clearly flag any such request to the Editor. All authors must agree with any such addition, removal or rearrangement.
Authors take collective responsibility for the work. Each individual author is accountable for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
2) How the journal will handle complaints and appeals
Anyone involved in authoring, editing or publishing scholarly manuscripts to carefully follow the journal directions about authorship, data management or other potentially problematic issues. At the same time, publishers and journals are expected to give clear directions and boundaries to the authors who want to submit manuscripts.
It is essential that all involved in the publication process, and particularly in complaints, carefully stick to the facts of the situation, refer to standards and policies. All complaints must be taken into consideration.
3) Journal policies on conflicts of interest / competing interests
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. 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, funders, or institutions connected to the paper or any relevant interests in organizations that might benefit or suffer from publication of the work.
Reviewers should consult and inform the Editor before agreeing to review a paper where they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. Potential conflicts may include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding
The Editor will decide whether the information on the conflict should be included in the published paper. Before publishing such information, the editor will consult with the corresponding author. In particular, all sources of funding for a study should be explicitly stated.
4) Journal policies on data sharing and reproducibility;
After publication, authors are free to share their work with the obligation to mention the fact that has been first published in «East Asia: Facts and Analytics».
5) Journal’s policy on ethical oversight;
Publishing ethics are taken serious at «East Asia: Facts and Analytics» Journal. They assure our responsibility to maintain the integrity of the scientific record as much as possible.
This core reflects a professional consensus that publication ethics encompasses not only the integrity, reliability, and merit of published researches, but also an underlying consideration and respect for the subjects of the research.
«East Asia: Facts and Analytics» guidelines regarding ethical conduct of research provides practices for handling issues such as informed consent, institutional oversight, and compliance with international research guidelines.
«East Asia: Facts and Analytics» diligently reviews submitted work to make sure that it conforms with research ethics guidelines, a process which often involves grappling with questions surrounding the adequacy of consent, the need for ethical review, and other difficult issues.
6) Journal’s policy on intellectual property/Copyright and License Notice
Submitted manuscripts must not be previously published in other journals.The authors of the articles published in «East Asia: Facts and Analytics» retain their copyright and publishing rights without restrictions.
All articles published by the Journal are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. This permits anyone to copy, redistribute, remix, transmit and adapt the work under the condition, that the original work and source are appropriately cited.
In compliance with the principle of full transparency all information including authors’ guidelines, papers’ submission requirements, the review process description and list of editorial board members is available on the Journal’s website [Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing].
7) Journal’s options for post-publication discussions and corrections.
The post-publication discussion is available via emails. If any readers have a concern about any articles published, they can send an email to the journal (firstname.lastname@example.org). If there founds any errors or mistakes in the article, it can be corrected or retracted.
It is the obligation of each author to provide prompt retractions or corrections of errors in published works. All corrections required by authors are handled by Editors. Once the update request has been approved, the paper will be updated and re-published on our website, along with the publication of a Correction.
8) Plagiarism and Retraction
The Journal ensures the integrity and transparency of each published article. The Journal denounces all forms of publication malpractice, including plagiarism, duplicate submission, misappropriation of research results and fraud.
Plagiarism is taken serious in «East Asia: Facts and Analytics». Thus, all received papers are checked with a specialized website (https://www.antiplagiat.ru) for plagiarism before review process.
Reuse of text that is copied from another source must be between quotation marks and the original source must be cited. If a study’s design or the manuscript’s structure or language has been inspired by previous studies, these studies must be explicitly cited. If plagiarism is detected during the peer review process, the manuscript may be rejected.
«East Asia: Facts and Analytics» addresses the retractions, corrections or expressions of concern in line with COPE’s Guidelines available on the website https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines.
The decision on retraction of the article must be formulated in the Protocol of the meeting of the Editorial Board. The decision will indicate the reason of retraction (in the case of plagiarism detection with reference to the sources of borrowing) and the date of retraction. The Article will remain on the website of the journal, but the electronic version of the text will be marked with the inscription «RETRACTED» and the date of retraction, the same mark being applied to the article and the table of contents of the issue.
If the Editorial Board decides to revoke the text of the article on the basis of its expertise or information received by the editor, the author / coauthors will be informed and asked for their reasoned opinion on the validity of the decision. If the author / co-authors ignore the editorial request, the Editorial Board will revoke the article without consulting the author. If the Editorial Board receives the appeal with grounds for article retraction, the editors inform the author of the appeal about the terms of its consideration. The maximum period for consideration may not exceed three months.
Author(s) shall have the right to appeal a decision on violation sanctions. All appeals must be submitted in written form to the Editorial Board within 30 days of notification of the decision. The appeal must include a rebuttal of the decision, explaining in detail the author(s) rationale for why the decision was in error.
- ELSEVIER: Elsevier publishing ethics resource kit
- COPE: Responsible research publication: international standards for authors
- COPE: Cope’s new code of conduct
- COPE: Responsible research publication: International standards for editors
- COPE: Cope short guide to ethical editing for new editors
- COPE: Cope ethical guidelines for peer reviewers
- COPE: The editorial board follows the guidelines for retracting articles issued by COPE
- COPE: Core Practices