ASIAN REVIEW OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (ARPA)
PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
The Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement of the Asian Review of Public Administration (ARPA) complies with the guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
The Asian Review of Public Administration (ARPA) is a peer-reviewed journal that contributes to building knowledge, theory and practice of public administration especially relating to the Asia-pacific region. The Asian Review of Public Administration (ARPA) journal upholds the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against publication malpractices. Thus, the duties and ethical guidelines for the editors, authors, peer reviewers and publisher are set out below.
Duties of the Editorial Board
The Editors should strive to address the needs of authors and readers, uphold freedom of expression, improve the quality of the journal, and ensure the quality of the manuscripts being published in ARPA.
Publication decisions
Editors of the Asian Review of Public Administration (ARPA) are responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. The Editor-in-Chief will be responsible for consulting with the members of the Editorial Board, as well as other editors and reviewers, on the actions that will be taken on the manuscripts to be considered for publication. The Editor-in-Chief shall have overall responsibility for managing the academic aspects of the journal.
Decisions made on the manuscripts shall be based on the faithfulness of representation, originality and clarity, and scholarly importance of the manuscript to the researchers, readers, and remit of the journal.
Editors shall not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless they identify serious problems with the submitted manuscripts.
New editors must not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous Editors unless they identify serious problems with the submitted manuscripts.
Editors must be able to justify any important deviation from the peer review process.
Fair play
The Editors shall assess manuscripts mainly for their intellectual content, without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Confidentiality
The ARPA Editors, Editorial Board members, and any editorial staff, must not reveal any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone, other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by the Editors for their own research without the express written consent of the author. Likewise, privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must remain confidential and should not be used for personal advantage.
Editors must exclude a co-editor, associate editor, reviewer, or themselves, from evaluating 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.
Editors must require all contributors, including authors, co-editors and reviewers, to reveal conflicts of interest, before agreeing to evaluate a submitted manuscript. If competing interests are reflected after publication, a statement of corrections, retraction, expression of concern, or any other note, must be published, if needed.
Editors must take measures to ensure that the identities of reviewers are protected.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an 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-in-Chief or publisher and cooperate with the Editor to retract or correct the paper. If the Editor or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the Editor of the correctness of the original paper.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
Editors shall take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted or published manuscript, in conjunction with the publisher, the Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration (EROPA). These measures include, but are not limited to: contacting the author of the manuscript and giving due consideration of the complaint or claims made, further communications to relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior shall be looked into, even if discovered years after publication.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review is an essential element of the ARPA editorial process. Peer review assists the ARPA journal editors in making editorial decisions, and through the editorial communications with the author, may also assist the authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. ARPA shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
Promptness
Any chosen referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself/herself from the review process without intentional delay.
Referees should contact the editors if they are not able to submit a timely review, and indicate an accurate estimate of the time they will need to finish the review if still asked to do so.
Reviewers should abide by the given time frame, and should not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of their review of by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or author.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents even post-review. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor-in Chief. In addition, review details should also be kept confidential.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. They should indicate good judgment, and give an honest and fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the research and the manuscript. Referees should ensure that their review is based on the merits of the work, and not influenced, either positively or negatively, by any personal, financial, or other conflicting considerations or by intellectual biases.
Acknowledgment of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement by a reviewer that an observation, derivation or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. 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.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. 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, companies or institutions connected to the papers. They should also notify the journal immediately and seek advice if they discover either a conflicting interest that wasn’t apparent when they agreed to the review or anything that might prevent them providing a fair and unbiased review.
If any reviewer suspects they know the identity of the author/s, they should notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
Reviewers should also notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the research being reviewed, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript. However, they should keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
Duties of Authors
Reporting standards
Authors 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. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial “opinion” works should be clearly identified as such.
Data access and retention
Authors should be prepared to provide public access to raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, if practicable. In any event, they should also be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works and, if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many 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), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable to ARPA.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
Authors should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. In general, authors should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
Acknowledgment of sources
Authors should always properly acknowledge the work of others. They should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as reviewing manuscripts, must not be used without explicit written permission of the authors of the work involved in these services.
Authorship of the paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. 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.
Hazards and human or animal subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Authors should reveal in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, he/she should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, the author should promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
Duties of the Publisher
The Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration (EROPA) is the publisher of the Asian Review of Public Administration (ARPA) journal. EROPA was established as an organization for the study and practice of public administration in the Asia-Pacific region in 1959 and is comprised of members from governments and academe. Its secretariat is located in Manila. EROPA has been publishing ARPA since 1989.
EROPA shall provide reasonable practical support to the ARPA Editorial Board, and define the relationship between the Editors and other parties.
The publisher shall protect intellectual property and copyright, and foster editorial independence.
The publisher shall work with the editors to appropriately set journal policies and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to editorial independence, research ethics, authorship, transparency and integrity, peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal Editor-in-Chief, appeals and complaints.
The publisher shall communicate and periodically review journal policies.
The publisher shall assist the parties, e.g. institutions, grant funders, governing bodies, responsible for investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases.
The publisher shall be responsible for publishing corrections, clarifications and retractions.
The Asian Review of Public Administration (ARPA) is a peer-reviewed journal that contributes to building knowledge, theory and practice of public administration especially relating to the Asia-pacific region. The Asian Review of Public Administration (ARPA) journal upholds the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against publication malpractices. Thus, the duties and ethical guidelines for the editors, authors, peer reviewers and publisher are set out below.
Duties of the Editorial Board
The Editors should strive to address the needs of authors and readers, uphold freedom of expression, improve the quality of the journal, and ensure the quality of the manuscripts being published in ARPA.
Publication decisions
Editors of the Asian Review of Public Administration (ARPA) are responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. The Editor-in-Chief will be responsible for consulting with the members of the Editorial Board, as well as other editors and reviewers, on the actions that will be taken on the manuscripts to be considered for publication. The Editor-in-Chief shall have overall responsibility for managing the academic aspects of the journal.
Decisions made on the manuscripts shall be based on the faithfulness of representation, originality and clarity, and scholarly importance of the manuscript to the researchers, readers, and remit of the journal.
Editors shall not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless they identify serious problems with the submitted manuscripts.
New editors must not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous Editors unless they identify serious problems with the submitted manuscripts.
Editors must be able to justify any important deviation from the peer review process.
Fair play
The Editors shall assess manuscripts mainly for their intellectual content, without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Confidentiality
The ARPA Editors, Editorial Board members, and any editorial staff, must not reveal any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone, other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by the Editors for their own research without the express written consent of the author. Likewise, privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must remain confidential and should not be used for personal advantage.
Editors must exclude a co-editor, associate editor, reviewer, or themselves, from evaluating 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.
Editors must require all contributors, including authors, co-editors and reviewers, to reveal conflicts of interest, before agreeing to evaluate a submitted manuscript. If competing interests are reflected after publication, a statement of corrections, retraction, expression of concern, or any other note, must be published, if needed.
Editors must take measures to ensure that the identities of reviewers are protected.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an 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-in-Chief or publisher and cooperate with the Editor to retract or correct the paper. If the Editor or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the Editor of the correctness of the original paper.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
Editors shall take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted or published manuscript, in conjunction with the publisher, the Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration (EROPA). These measures include, but are not limited to: contacting the author of the manuscript and giving due consideration of the complaint or claims made, further communications to relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior shall be looked into, even if discovered years after publication.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review is an essential element of the ARPA editorial process. Peer review assists the ARPA journal editors in making editorial decisions, and through the editorial communications with the author, may also assist the authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. ARPA shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
Promptness
Any chosen referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself/herself from the review process without intentional delay.
Referees should contact the editors if they are not able to submit a timely review, and indicate an accurate estimate of the time they will need to finish the review if still asked to do so.
Reviewers should abide by the given time frame, and should not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of their review of by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or author.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents even post-review. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor-in Chief. In addition, review details should also be kept confidential.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. They should indicate good judgment, and give an honest and fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the research and the manuscript. Referees should ensure that their review is based on the merits of the work, and not influenced, either positively or negatively, by any personal, financial, or other conflicting considerations or by intellectual biases.
Acknowledgment of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement by a reviewer that an observation, derivation or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. 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.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. 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, companies or institutions connected to the papers. They should also notify the journal immediately and seek advice if they discover either a conflicting interest that wasn’t apparent when they agreed to the review or anything that might prevent them providing a fair and unbiased review.
If any reviewer suspects they know the identity of the author/s, they should notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
Reviewers should also notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the research being reviewed, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript. However, they should keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
Duties of Authors
Reporting standards
Authors 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. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial “opinion” works should be clearly identified as such.
Data access and retention
Authors should be prepared to provide public access to raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, if practicable. In any event, they should also be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works and, if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many 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), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable to ARPA.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
Authors should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. In general, authors should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
Acknowledgment of sources
Authors should always properly acknowledge the work of others. They should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as reviewing manuscripts, must not be used without explicit written permission of the authors of the work involved in these services.
Authorship of the paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. 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.
Hazards and human or animal subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Authors should reveal in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, he/she should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, the author should promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
Duties of the Publisher
The Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration (EROPA) is the publisher of the Asian Review of Public Administration (ARPA) journal. EROPA was established as an organization for the study and practice of public administration in the Asia-Pacific region in 1959 and is comprised of members from governments and academe. Its secretariat is located in Manila. EROPA has been publishing ARPA since 1989.
EROPA shall provide reasonable practical support to the ARPA Editorial Board, and define the relationship between the Editors and other parties.
The publisher shall protect intellectual property and copyright, and foster editorial independence.
The publisher shall work with the editors to appropriately set journal policies and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to editorial independence, research ethics, authorship, transparency and integrity, peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal Editor-in-Chief, appeals and complaints.
The publisher shall communicate and periodically review journal policies.
The publisher shall assist the parties, e.g. institutions, grant funders, governing bodies, responsible for investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases.
The publisher shall be responsible for publishing corrections, clarifications and retractions.