A+ A-

Journal of Southeast Asian Economies

Publication Ethics Statement


The Journal of Southeast Asian Economies is committed to responsible research publication. Accordingly, our publication ethics statement outlines the duties of authors, editors and reviewers, and is consistent with the international standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). More information on COPE can be found here.
Authors (1)

  • Authors should submit work that is original and accurate, is not under consideration by any other publication, and has not been published elsewhere in any language. Authors are requested to inform the Editors if they are submitting a manuscript that has appeared elsewhere as an unpublished paper (i.e., not identified by an ISSN/ISBN) such as in a conference proceeding or as a working paper. Such submissions can be taken into consideration as long as they have not been published elsewhere as book chapters or journal articles.
  • Co-authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the research article/research note/book review/review article. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and have agreed to its publication.
  • Relevant data, and previous work, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced.
  • All calculations, data presentations, submissions and proofs should be carefully checked.
  • Authors are expected to adhere to the Journal’s guidelines for manuscripts.
  • Funding sources and relevant conflicts of interests should be disclosed.
  • Authors should alert the Editorial Committee promptly if they discover an error in any submitted, accepted or published work, and should cooperate with the Editors in issuing corrections or retractions when required.    

Editors (2)

  • The Editorial Committee is responsible for deciding which of the papers submitted to the Journal should be published. The Committee may reject a paper without peer review when it is deemed unsuitable for the Journal’s readers, is of poor quality, or does not adhere to the Journal’s guidelines for manuscripts.
  • The Journal has a clearly stated editorial policy that can be accessed here.
  • The Committee should ensure that suitable reviewers are approached to assess papers submitted for publication, and that reviews are received in a timely manner.
  • The Committee must protect the confidentiality of authors’ material and must remind reviewers to do so as well.
  • Manuscripts submitted by members of the Journal’s Editorial Committee and/or members of the International Advisory Committee are subject to the same rigorous double-blind peer review as all other manuscripts submitted for publication.  

Reviewers (3)

  • Reviewers are selected on the basis of their expertise and knowledge to carry out a proper manuscript assessment within 3 months of their appointment as reviewer.
  • Reviewers are requested to be specific and detailed in their criticisms by: (i) providing evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements such as, “this work has been done before” and (ii) making clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript.
  • Reviewers should also respond promptly if contacted by the Journal about matters related to their review and accommodate requests to assess revisions or resubmissions of manuscripts they have reviewed.
  • The confidentiality of the manuscript should be respected by the reviewers.

Peer Review Statement

  • All articles submitted to the Journal for publication undergo rigorous peer review. The process consists of an initial screening by the Co-Editors and the Assistant Editor, followed by double-blind refereeing: two reviewers for articles and one reviewer for research notes.
  • Authors are encouraged to nominate 3 potential peer reviewers. However, the final selection of appropriate reviewers will be at the discretion of the Editorial Committee.
  • In the event of conflicting recommendations from the reviewers (i.e., one reviewer rejects a manuscript while the other accepts it for publication), the Editors have the discretion to either make a decision to reject or accept the manuscript for publication, or appoint a third reviewer. In the latter case, authors will be notified and made aware that the review process is to be extended. However, the authors will also be given the option of withdrawing their paper if they are unwilling to undergo the extended review process.        

The responsibility for facts and opinions presented in the articles published by the Journal of Southeast Asian Economies rests exclusively with the authors. Their interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views or the policy of the Editorial Committee, the International Advisory Committee, or the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Note – Some of the above-mentioned statements are derived directly from the international standards drafted by COPE. Others have been partially modified to suit the specific requirements of the Journal of Southeast Asian Economies. All of the above-mentioned statements have been drawn in whole or in part from the following cited sources:   
(1) Wager E. and Kleinert S. (2011) Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Authors. A position Statement Developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. Chapter 50 in: Mayer T. and Steneck N. (eds). Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (pp. 309-16).
 (ISBN 978-981-4340-97-7)
(2) Kleinert S. and Wager E. (2011) Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Editors. A position Statement Developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. Chapter 51 in: Mayer T. and Steneck N. (eds). Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (pp. 317-28).
 (ISBN 978-981-4340-97-7)
(3) Hames I. (2013). COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (v.1 March 2013). Available at this link (accessed 20th October 2014)