Review policy
Procedures for external peer review
After preliminary verification of the paper, the Editors-in-Chief send it to the section editor specializing in that particular area of expertise. This editor designates two reviewers for each paper and forwards these proposals to the Board of Editors.
According to the guidelines on the review procedure published by the Minister of Education of the Republic of Poland of 29 May 2013 on the criteria and manner of evaluation to be implemented by scholarly journals, each publication is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with institutional affiliations other than that of the author. The identity of the author or authors of the manuscript is never disclosed to the reviewers and vice versa (a double-blind review process).
The reviewers receive texts without the author’s surname and a review form attached above. A list of reviewers is published on our website. However, the names of reviewers of specific articles are not revealed.
The review form consists of several questions on the basis of which the reviewers assess the contents of the paper. There is also space provided for a description and a conclusion in which the reviewers must express their recommendation on whether the paper should be published or rejected by the journal. Two positive reviews are needed for the paper to be published. Should there be only one positive review, the Board of Editors decides whether to publish the paper or to obtain the opinion of a third reviewer. Two negative reviews exclude the manuscript from being published in the journal.
Having received two positive recommendations, the text is accepted for publication and proofreading, which is done by a professional editor. Finally, the edited and proofread text is sent to the author for final approval.
Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement
The practices of the editors are in line with the standards stated in the COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors: https://publicationethics.org/resources
The following are the standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in publishing in the journal: the author, the journal editor and editorial board, the peer reviewers and the publisher.
All the articles submitted for publication in the Asia-Pacific are double-blind peer reviewed to ensure objectivity and reliability of the process, as well as to promote diversity in scholarly publishing.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS
Monitoring of ethical standards: The editorial board monitors submissions to the journal to ensure that they meet the standards of ethical scholarship and takes all possible measures to prevent any academic malpractice.
Fair play: Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, citizenship, or political ideology.
Publication decisions: The editor is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should or should not be published. The decision to accept or reject a paper for publication is based on its importance, originality, clarity, and its relevance to the scope of the journal.
Confidentiality: The editor and the members of the editorial board must ensure that all materials submitted to the journal remain confidential while under review. They must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.
Disclosure and conflict of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in the submitted manuscript must not be used by the editor and the editorial board in their own research without written consent of authors. Editors always preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards.
Maintain the integrity of the academic record: The editors will safeguard the integrity of the published academic record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. Plagiarism and fraudulent data are not acceptable.
Retraction of articles: The journal’s editors will consider retracting a publication if:
- they have a clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)
- the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (cases of redundant publication)
- it constitutes plagiarism or involves unethical research.
Notice of the retraction should be linked to the retracted article (by including the title and authors in the retraction heading), clearly identify the retracted article and state who is retracting the article. Retraction notices should always mention the reason(s) for retraction to distinguish honest error from misconduct.
Retracted articles will not be removed from printed copies of the journal nor from electronic archives but their retracted status will be indicated as clearly as possible.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS
Reporting standards: 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. The paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. The fabrication of results and making of fraudulent or inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and may cause rejection or retraction of a manuscript or a published article.
Originality and plagiarism: Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others they need to be cited or quoted. Plagiarism and fraudulent data are not acceptable.
Data access retention: Authors may be asked to provide the raw data for editorial review, should be prepared to provide public access to such data, and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication of their paper.
Multiple or concurrent publication: Authors should not in general publish a manuscript describing essentially the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Authorship of the manuscript: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. All those who have made contributions should be listed as co-authors.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in 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.
Acknowledgement of sources: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. The authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the scope of the reported work.
Fundamental errors in published works: When the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS
Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer reviews assist the editor in making editorial decisions and may also help authors to improve their manuscript.ons and apologies when needed.
Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself/herself from the review process.
Confidentiality: All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except those authorized by the editor.
Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources: Reviewers should identify the relevant published work that has not been cited by authors. Any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper should be reported to the editor.
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 evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relations with any of the authors, companies, or institutions involved in writing a paper.
