Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia (JCEA)
JCEA is a refereed biannual journal that takes a lead on a new scholarship in Asia. In the past, the JCEA was dedicated to the study of current political, social and economic trends in East and Southeast Asia. But now, the JCEA finds unique aspects of Asian scholarship by expanding its scope to (socio-technical) convergence and future (network) studies. The JCEA editors are working very hard to boost the scholarly presence of new Asian scholarship around the world and secure its reputation as an emerging world-class publishing outlet. The editors welcome manuscripts based on original research or significant reexamination of existing literature.
The editors welcome manuscripts based on original research or significant reexamination of existing literature. All manuscripts submitted should not have been published elsewhere and should have been proofread by a native speaker of English. The review process takes approximately two months.
Currently, all submissions must be made through the editorial system. Please direct your questions about the submission process to: email@example.com
Submission Preparation Checklist
As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
- The submitted e-document is in Microsoft Word or RTF format and does not exceed 10,000 words (Research articles, incl. abstract and bibliography) or 5,000 words (Book reviews, incl. abstract and bibliography) respectively.
- Follow the APA style for citations, reference list, and headings.
- I have read the Guideline for Authors and will revise the manuscript accordingly if the submission is accepted.
- Where available, URLs for the references have been provided (incl. date of access).
PUBLICATION ETHICSPeer-review process
JCEA is committed to upholding the integrity of the academic record. JCEA takes issues of copyright infringement, plagiarism or other breaches of best practice in publication very seriously. We seek to protect the rights of our authors and the reputation of the journal. We will take prompt actions to investigate claims of plagiarism or misuse. Submitted articles may be checked for duplication. When the issues of copyright infringement, plagiarism and contested authorship arise, we reserve the right to take action including, but not limited to: publishing an erratum or corrigendum (correction); retracting the article; taking up the matter with the head of department or dean of the author's institution and/or relevant academic bodies or societies; or taking appropriate legal action.
In submitting the manuscript, the authors certify that:
- They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- The submitted manuscript is original and has not been published before (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis or working paper), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication has been approved by all the authors and that the authors have full authority to enter into this agreement.
- They warrant and represent that they have the full power and authority to enter into and execute this agreement and to convey the rights granted herein, and that such rights are not now subject to prior assignment, transfer or other encumbrance. This also applies to the text and photo originals attained from other sources (for which the authors have secured the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere).
- Their manuscript contains nothing that is unlawful, libelous, or which would, if published, constitute a breach of contract or of confidence or of commitment given to secrecy.
- In the event that the parties to this agreement, either individually or collectively, are held responsible for damages or the costs of a legal process undertaken by a third party as a result of the authors?actions under points 1, 2, 3, and 4, the authors agree to release the publisher from the claims of the third party and to compensate the publisher for any resulting legal costs.
- They agree to the following license and copyright agreement
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication in print and online. The work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works License, which allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. However, the work may not be altered or transformed. The license is valid for both electronic and paper copies.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors grant GIGA commercial rights to produce hardcopy volumes of the journal for sale to libraries and individuals, as well as to integrate the work, its title, and its abstract in databases, abstracting and indexing services, and other similar information sources.
- Court of jurisdiction is Seoul, Republic of Korea.
The names and e-mail addresses entered in this journal's site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.
JCEA is committed to ensuring that the peer-review process is as robust and ethical as possible. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines regarding peer review can be found at the following link. Please read the guidelines before accepting or declining my invitation.
Peer review in all its forms plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process depends to a large extent on trust, and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and may be unaware of their ethical obligations. The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process. It is hoped they will provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for journals and editors in guiding their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers.
Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere
Peer reviewers should:
- only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner
- respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal
- not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others
- declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest
- not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations
- be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments
- acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner
- provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise
- recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct
Expectations during the peer-review process
On being approached to review Peer reviewers should:
- respond in a reasonable time-frame, especially if they cannot do the review, and without intentional delay.
- declare if they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review or if they are able to assess only part of the manuscript, outlining clearly the areas for which they have the relevant expertise.
- only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension.
- declare any potentially conflicting or competing interests (which may, for example, be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious), seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.
- follow journals’ policies on situations they consider to represent a conflict to reviewing. If no guidance is provided, they should inform the journal if: they work at the same institution as any of the authors (or will be joining that institution or are applying for a job there); they are or have been recent (e.g. within the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders; they have a close personal relationship with any of the authors.
- review afresh any manuscript they have previously reviewed for another journal as it may have changed between the two submissions and the journals’ criteria for evaluation and acceptance may be different.
- ensure suggestions for alternative reviewers are based on suitability and not influenced by personal considerations or made with the intention of the manuscript receiving a specific outcome (either positive or negative).
- not agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review.
- decline to review if they feel unable to provide a fair and unbiased review.
- decline to review if they have been involved with any of the work in the manuscript or its reporting.
- decline to review if asked to review a manuscript that is very similar to one they have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.
- decline to review if they have issues with the peer-review model used by a journal (e.g. it uses open review and releases the reviewers’ names to the authors) that would either affect their review or cause it to be invalidated because of their inability to comply with the journal’s review policies.
Expectations post review
Peer reviewers should:
- continue to keep details of the manuscript and its review confidential.
- respond promptly if contacted by a journal about matters related to their review of a manuscript and provide the information required.
- contact the journal if anything relevant comes to light after they have submitted their review that might affect their original feedback and recommendations.
- read the reviews from the other reviewers, if these are provided by the journal, to improve their own understanding of the topic or the decision reached.
- try to accommodate requests from journals to review revisions or resubmissions of manuscripts they have reviewed.