Social Science Asia (SSA) is a regionally based academic journal that intends to establish scientific standards and quality in the area. It therefore understands the importance of cedes of conduct and ethics in academic publication. Within such premises, all parties involved in the publication process of SSA should follow the guidelines of “ The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) ” (https://publicationethics.org/). We are highly committed to these requirements that the following violations are strictly prohibited and sanctioned:
- Plagiarism and related plagiaristic practices of other’s works in all forms, including self-plagiarism
- Manuscripts and articles with data fabrication and falsification
- Articles that have been published elsewhere
- Manuscripts and articles with citation manipulation
Manuscripts under review, which violate one or more of these requirements, must be immediately rejected and published articles found to contain any of these violations must be withdrawn from the journal.
The editors of SSA rigorously use a "double-blind" peer review process where neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's identities. Editors make the final decision on whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected based on the suggestions and comments of peer reviewers. The SSA editorial team consists of an editorial board, an Editor-in-Chief, and section editors. Generally, the editorial board will give advice and guidelines on academic aspects Highly-respected. Editorial board members may also serve as reviewers. The editorial team consists of well-respected experts in the various research areas covered by the themes of SSA. Based on the research area of the submitted manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief will assign the manuscript to an appropriate member of the editorial team, who will then serve as the section editor. The section editor is in charge of assigning the manuscript to reviewers with appropriate areas of interest and expertise, and will make the final decision for potential publication. The final decision will be made by the Editor-in-Chief, except in cases with conflicts of interest or differences in opinion. In order to proceed with the publication process, all editors of SSA should follow the guidelines given below.
- The editors must uphold all ethical principles and rules in decisions related to SSA.
- The editors must carefully select reviewers who have relevant expertise and scientific backgroud and do not have any conflicts of interest with the authors of the manuscript.
- The editors must not disclose the identity of the reviewers to the authors and vice versa.
- The editors must not disclose any information from a manuscript before its publication.
- Information or comments from the reviewers must be kept confidential and should not be used for personal advantage.
Authorship of a manuscript should be limited to those who have made significant contribution to the manuscript including conception, experimental design, interpretation of the experimental result, and writing of the manuscript. In addition, authors must follow the guidelines listed below.
- A manuscript must not be published in any other journal before submitting to SSA. If some results reported in the submitted manuscript have been formally published in a proceeding, it must be stated and presented as a note in the manuscript.
- Authors can submit the manuscript to other journals only after the manuscript has been formally declined by SSA.
- The corresponding author has to sign the copyright transfer agreement with SSA after the manuscript is accepted.
- All authors are accountable for any scientific mistakes and arguments as well as plagiarism.
- It is the duty of the corresponding author to respond to all the comments and suggestions of the reviewers. If authors do not agree with any comments of a reviewer, the authors should provide an explanation. However, the final decision is at the discretion of the section editor or the Editor-in-Chief.
- SSA follows a strict policy regarding authorship changes. The approval of authorship change should be obtained from all authors if any author wishes to change the order of authors, i.e., add/delete an author or change the corresponding author.
Reviewers should play a very important role in manuscript publication. Their comments and suggestions help authors improve their manuscript quality and standards and ensure that the manuscript is worthy of publication and will contribute to academic knowledge. Further, reviewers can influence the final manuscript with their comments and suggestions. To achieve the aims of the review process, the reviewers are certainty expected to perform their roles in accordance as follows
Confidentiality: Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the review process. They should not discuss aspects of the work under review with other researchers until such time as the article is published. Unpublished materials disclosed in a manuscript under review must not be quoted or referenced by a reviewer without the express written consent of the author, requested through the editor. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Conflicts of interest: If the reviewer realizes, after receiving a manuscript for review, that he or she has been involved in the research described, knows the researchers involved in the research, or for any reason cannot give an objective review of the manuscript, the reviewer should inform the editors and decline the review. Conflicts of interest can include competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper under review.
Objectivity: Manuscripts should be reviewed objectively in the context of the reviewer's expertise in the field. The importance of the article's contribution to the existing research in its field, the quality of articulation of the argument, and the strength of the evidence provided are critical factors in reviewing the quality of a manuscript. Personal opinions without backing evidence should not be used as criteria for review decisions.
Acknowledgement of sources: Reviewers should identify important relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. 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.