[Journal of Asia Trade and Business (JATB)]
|Chapter 1. General Rules
|Article 1 (Purpose)
|The purpose of the following rules is to prescribe matters regarding the editorial work and standards for the Journal of Asia Trade and Business (hereinafter referred to as “JATB”) published by the Asian Trade Association (hereinafter referred to as “ATA”).
|Chapter 2. Editorial Committee
|Article 2 (Editorial Committee)
|The editorial committee (hereinafter referred to as “committee”) is established in order to accomplish the purpose of Article 1.
|Article 3 (Formation of Editorial Committee)
a. The editorial members shall be appointed by the chairman of ATA, and the committee shall consist of no more than 50 members.
b. The chief editor shall be appointed by the chairman of ATA and is in charge of all editing.
c. The editorial committee shall be composed of two chief editors, one editor, and one managing editor. The editors are appointed by the chairman of ATA among editorial members.
d. The term for the chief editor is three years, and the term for the editorial members is two years, and editorial members may be reappointed.
e. This committee makes decisions with a majority attendance of the members and a majority agreement of the members present.
|Article 4 (Qualification of Editorial Members)
|The editorial members shall meet the following qualifications:
i. Being at least an associate professor in a domestic/international university or a person equally qualified.
ii. Someone who studies in an area within the JATB’s specialty and who has published at least 3 articles in a journal (or 1 article in an SCI, SSCI and/or SCOPUS indexed journal) within the last three years.
|Article 5 (Responsibilities and Obligations of Editorial Members)
a. Editorial members are fully responsible for the decision to publish JATB-submitted papers, confirm their integrity during the deliberation process, and observe candidates during the editing process.
b. Editorial members should respect the author’s person and independence as a scholar, and make the process of the evaluation of the research paper public if there is a request.
c. Editorial members should handle submitted papers only based on the quality and guidelines for authors, not based on the author’s gender, age, or affiliation.
d. Editorial members should request a reviewer with specialized knowledge and fair evaluation ability in the relevant field to evaluate submitted papers. However, if evaluations of the same paper are remarkably different, editorial members can acquire advice from an expert in the relevant field.
e. Editorial members should not disclose the matters of the author and the details of the paper until a decision is made pertaining to the publication of the submitted paper.
|Chapter 3. Paper Submission and Peer Review Committee
|Article 6 (Qualification of Submission and Submission)
a. All the paper submitters must be members registered with JATB.
b. All papers should be submitted through the JATB online system (http://www.jatb.org), and can be submitted at any time. English-language papers from authors outside of the United States of America may also be submitted using e-mail.
|Article 7 (Formation of Peer Review Committee)
a. Peer reviewers are appointed by the chief editor, and selected based on the field of the reviewer’s expertise. (According to circumstances, a peer reviewer who is not a member of JATB may be appointed.)
b. Editorial members for each content subject such as international economy, international management, or practice of trade can also serve as peer reviewers.
c. The chief editor represents editorial members, handles all the matters relating to review, and reports the results of peer review to the committee.
d. The managing editor is in charge of the procedure relating to review.
e. The classification and selection of submitted papers is decided by the chief editor and the managing editor, and they report it to the committee.
|Article 8 (Qualification of Peer Reviewers)
|Peer reviewers shall have the following qualifications:
i. Being at least an associate professor in a domestic/international university, or a person who is as equally specialized as the person above.
ii. Someone who studies an area within the JATB’s specialty and has published at least 3 articles in a journal (or 1 article in an SCI, SSCI and/or SCOPUS indexed journal) within the last three years.
iii. Someone who presents a paper, chairs a session or serves as a discussant at an academic conference at the same level of the institution, or has served as a reviewer of a study which has been indexed in a domestic or international journal within the last three years.
|Article 9 (Responsibility and Duty of Peer Reviewers)
a. Peer reviewers should evaluate papers and report the results of the evaluation to the committee within the time period set by the committee. However, if he/she believes that they are not appropriately qualified to review the paper, they should notify the committee without delay.
b. Peer reviewers should respect the author’s person and independence as a scholar. Peer reviewers may request for revision of the paper with detailed explanations if needed in the evaluation of the research paper.
c. Papers are reviewed confidentially using a method in which the name and affiliation of the author is confidential to the public. Showing the paper and/or discussing the contents of the paper with a third party is not desirable unless a consultation is needed for purposes of review.
|Article 10 (Unethical Behavior in the Review Process)
a. Peer reviewers must not manipulate either directly or indirectly the related research-specific information contained in the research proposal or review process without the consent of the original author.
b. Peer reviewers must be careful of the following since it could be regarded as unethical research practices in the review process:
i. The act of handing over are quested paper to students or a third partyii.
ii. The act of discussing the details of a paper with colleagues
iii. The act of obtaining a copy of the requested material without shredding it after review
iv. The act of disgracing the honor of others or fabricating a personal attack in the review process
v. The act of reviewing and evaluating a research paper without reading it
|Article 11 (Personal and Intellectual Conflict)
a. Peer reviewers must fairly evaluate using an objective standard regardless of personal academic conviction.
b. Peer reviewers must avoid personal prejudice when reviewing a paper. If there is a conflict of interest including personal conflict, it must be notified to the committee.
c. Peer reviewers must not propose rejecting a paper due to a conflict in interpretation or with the point of view of the reviewer.
|Chapter 4. Principle and Process of Paper Review
|Article 12 (Papers for Peer-review)
|Review shall proceed based on the writing and guidelines for authors. If the submitted paper substantially diverges from the writing and guidelines for authors, the paper may not be reviewed.
|Article 13 (Request for Review and Review Fee)
a. The chief editor discusses the selection of reviewers with editorial members and selects two reviewers for each paper after submitted papers pass the eligibility test.
b. The chief editor immediately requests the two selected reviewers to review the relevant submitted paper.
c. Papers are reviewed by confidential method in which the name and affiliation of the author is confidential to the reviewer, and the name of the reviewer is confidential to the author.
d. The chief editor requests a review after deleting the name and the affiliation of the author from the submitted paper, so that the reviewer cannot obtain the identity of the author.
e. A review fee shall be paid to the reviewer.
|Article 14 (Review of Paper and Decision)
a. Reviewers shall submit a decision report via the JATB’s online submission system (http://www.jatb.org) within two weeks after they are asked to review a paper.
b. The reviewer shall decide whether the paper should be published based on the following standard. However, if the paper receives less than 30 points in the suitability and creativity of the topic, it will not be published.
i. The suitability of the topic (20 points)
ii. The creativity of the topic (20 points)
iii. The validity of the research analysis (20 points)
iv. The organization and logic development of the paper (20 points)
v. The contribution of the result (10 points)
vi. The expression of the sentence and the requirement of editing (10 points)
The reviewer must give one of the following four possible marks within the two week period: A (90~100 points, acceptance), B (80~89 points, acceptance after minor revisions), C (70~79 points, re-review after revision), F (Rejection), and write an overall review comment concerning the revision and supplementation of the paper.
c. In an instance where the reviewer does not finish the review within the two week period, the chief editor can nominate a new reviewer.
|Article 15 (Correction of Papers according to the Editing Guideline)
a. Before holding an editorial committee meeting, the chief editor shall request editorial staff correct those papers that receive “acceptance” or “acceptance after minor revisions”, using the journal’s paper editing guidelines. However, if there is a paper that receives “acceptance” after the editorial committee meeting, the chief editor will request the editorial staff to correct the paper after the meeting.
b. The chief editor shall notify each author of the result of his or her paper review after receiving the corrected version of the paper from the editorial staff. However, papers which receive a “rejection” shall not be notified of their result.
|Article 16 (Decision of Paper and Principle of Editing)
a. The chief editor shall call an editorial board meeting and make publication decisions after receiving finished papers from reviewers.
b. The editorial board will make decisions to publish based on the following chart. The editorial board should respect reviewers’ decisions on relevant papers, but can make decisions based on the editorial policy of the JATB.
c. The paper that is awarded “acceptance” should receive a “B” or higher from reviewers or the level of overall evaluation (average) should be “B” or higher, and the paper that is awarded “acceptance after minor revisions” should have its satisfactory revisions and/or developments confirmed by the initial reviewer after re-submission.
d. The editorial board shall confirm that papers in consideration for publication are suitable to the writing and submission guideline of JATB, look through detailed matters, and decide particular issue policies such as the number of papers and the order of them.
e. In the case where a paper was presented or submitted for review previously, it cannot be published in JATB.
f. In the case where an author submits two or more papers for consideration, only one paper that receives “acceptance” shall be published in the same issue.
|Article 17 (Notification of the Result)
a. The chief editor shall notify an author of the review result after the initial evaluation or re-evaluation is finished, but can request the author to revise and develop the paper based on the evaluation report. If the editorial board makes a final decision on publication, the author should be notified.
b. The author must be notified of the review result within one month from the day of receiving the paper or revised paper (or the deadline of submission). If it is impossible to notify the author within one month, the reason and the due date of notification must be notified to the author.
c. Unless there is a specific reason, the author must submit a file including a response to the evaluation report, revision to and/or development of the paper to the chief editor after editing the paper within the period the editorial board suggests when he/she is asked to edit the paper. The changed details must be confirmed by the editorial board as well. In case the author does not submit the revision and development to the editorial board within the period, it shall be automatically postponed until this process is finished.
d. A paper that receives a “C” in the overall evaluation (average) shall be re-evaluated after the chief editor sends the revised article and revision report to the initial reviewer(s).
e. In cases where the evaluations of the same paper are remarkably different among reviewers, the chief editor can nominate a third reviewer and request a re-evaluation. In this case, the chief editor shall send the evaluation report to three different reviewers and have them submit the final evaluation report based on the details of the paper, and the paper can be published after revision only if the final mark awarded the revised paper is higher than a “B” in the overall evaluation.
f. The chief editor will issue an acceptance letter for the papers confirmed to be published.
|Article 18 (Proofreading and Editing)
a. The chief editor shall request domestic/international members to proofread and edit papers confirmed to be published.
b. Proofreading and editing members shall be recommended by the chief editor and appointed by the chairman of ATA.
c. The chief editor shall send the results of proofreading and editing to the original author and request the author to edit the paper appropriately.
d. The author, unless there is a specific reason, must submit the revised paper and revision report to the chief editor after editing the paper within the period the editorial board suggests when he/she is asked to edit the paper. The changed details must be confirmed by the editorial board as well.
e. Even if a paper is confirmed to be published, it will be rejected if it has not fulfilled the editing procedure following the result of proofreading and editing, or has been found to have committed research misconduct of any kind.
f. If an editing member finds plagiarism, inadequate form, or low quality in the process of editing a paper that the journal has confirmed to be published, he/she must notify the chief editor, and can suggest proper responses to the findings.
g. The chief editor suggests whether to avoid publication of a paper or have the author re-submit the paper after revision and development according to the guidelines stipulated in Article 5. In the case of a paper requested to be revised and developed, publication can be postponed based on the degree of completion and the schedule of revision and development.
|Chapter 5. Editing and Publication
|Article 19 (Editing and the Date of Publication)
|JATB is published two times a year [30th June, 30th December] in principle. However, if there is a reason such as the number of submitted papers, the committee can increase or decrease the number of issues.
|Article 20 (Notification of Editing)
a. The chief editor shall acquire publication consent from the authors of the confirmed papers before printing.
b. The chief editor shall report to the chairman of ATA when the editorial process following editorial policy is completed, and shall further follow the outlined process for printing and editing.
|Article 21 (Sanction on Plagiarism and Redundant Publication)
|If the ethics committee finds that a submitted paper or a published paper contains plagiarism or was published in another journal, the following sanctions will be taken:
a. Distributing after deleting the relevant paper in the journal if the journal has not been distributed yet,
b. Notification of paper deletion on the website if it the related issue has already been distributed,
c. Notification of the plagiarism or redundant publication of the relevant paper on the website,
d. Banning the relevant author from submitting papers to all journals published by ATA for two years from the date when plagiarism and redundant publication is found and from presenting in conference, and
e. Notifying the author’s affiliated organization or institution of the fact of the plagiarism or the redundant publication, if necessary.
|Article 22 (Transfer of the Rights of Publication, Duplication, Public Transmission, and Distribution)
a. The right of publication of the paper is owned by ATA unless specified.
b. The author(s) shall transfer the right of duplication, public transmission, and publication to ATA. If they do not agree, the relevant paper cannot be published in JATB.
|Article 23 (Notification of Paper on Homepage)
|Papers published in JATB shall be publicly notified on the JATB homepage (http://www.jatb.org)
|Article 24 (Etc.)
|The matters that are not decided in these rules are either subject to the guidelines for authors or decided by the editorial board.
|Article 25 (Date of Effectiveness)
|These regulations shall be effective as of December 12, 2015.