Asiasn review of Financial research

Research and publication ethics

HOMEAuthor Research and publication ethics

Regarding publishing ethics, Asian Review of Financial Research (ARFR) follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (, COPE) Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing and the Korean Ministry of Education’s Guideline for Research Ethics (

Further, ARFR provides the guideline of the journal’s own publishing ethics (ARFR Ethics Policy)

This code of ethics is aimed at preventing misconduct in research by providing the essential ethical standards necessary for manuscripts submitted to and published in the Asian Review of Financial Research (ARFR, hereafter) and by supplying rules on decisions and procedures for those manuscripts for which suspicions of plagiarism are raised.
The journal adheres to the ethical guidelines for research and publication described in Guidelines on Good Publication
( and the ICMJE Guidelines (

1. Authorship

Authorship should be restricted to those who play the following roles:

i) Significantly contribute to the conception, design, data collection, analyses, and interpretation of the research.

ii) Draft the paper and/or revise it substantially by complementing or adding important contents.

iii) Approve the final version of the paper and agree to its submission for publication.

iv) Ensure that questions associated with the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are properly examined and answered.

The corresponding author should clarify that all co-authors are listed in the paper. ARFR allows one corresponding author for one paper. The corresponding author communicates with the editorial office and readers.

Authors should consider carefully the list and order of authors prior to submitting their manuscript. After the original submission of the manuscript, any change in authorship such as addition, deletion, or rearrangement of authors should be clearly requested and explained to the editor. All authors should agree with any such change in authorship. ARFR does not allow authorship to be modified after the publication of the paper unless errors have been made by the editorial office.

ARFR does accept notice of equal contribution for the first author when the study was clearly performed by co-first authors.

2. Originality, plagiarism, and duplicate publication

Submitted manuscripts must not have been previously published or be under consideration for publication elsewhere. No part of the accepted manuscript should be duplicated in any other journal without the permission of the Editorial Board. Submitted manuscripts are screened for possible plagiarism or duplicate publication by Similarity Check upon arrival. If plagiarism or duplicate publication is detected, the manuscripts may be rejected, the authors will be announced in the journal, and their institutions will be informed. There will also be penalties for the authors.
A letter of permission is required for any and all material that has been published previously. It is the responsibility of the author to request permission from the publisher for any material that is being reproduced. This requirement applies to text, figures, and tables.

3. Conflict of interest statement

Authors should disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could affect their work. Examples of potential conflicts of interests include grants or funding from any organization or entity with financial or non-financial interest and political pressure from interest groups. All sources of funding related to the research should be clearly stated.

4. Process for managing research and publication misconduct

The editorial board of ARFR have carefully examined all submitted manuscripts whether these are abided by the ethical guidelines of the COPE. The published articles have involved the statements of conflict of interest, institutional review board, and informed consent.

When the journal faces suspected cases of research and publication misconduct such as redundant(duplicate) publication, plagiarism, fraudulent or fabricated data, changes in authorship, an undisclosed conflict of interest, ethical problems with a submitted manuscript, a reviewer who has appropriated an author’s idea or data, complaints against editors, and so on, the resolution process will follow the flowchart provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics ( ). The discussion and decision on the suspected cases are carried out by the Editorial Board of the ARFR.

5. Process for managing research and publication misconduct

Cases that require editorial expressions of concern or retraction shall follow the COPE flowcharts available from: If correction needs, it will follow the ICMJE Recommendation for Corrections, Retractions, Republications and Version Control available from: as follows:

The ARFR have right to require publication of a correction when they are detected. Corrections are needed for errors of fact. Minimum standards are as follows: First, it shall publish a correction notice as soon as possible detailing changes from and citing the original publication on both an electronic and numbered print page that is included in an electronic or a print Table of Contents to ensure proper indexing; Second, it shall post a new article version with details of the changes from the original version and the date(s) on which the changes were made through CrossMark; Third, it shall archive all prior versions of the article. This archive can be either directly accessible to readers; and Fourth, previous electronic versions shall prominently note that there are more recent versions of the article via CrossMark.

6. Editorial responsibility

The Editorial board have a responsibility to ensure a strict and fair review process of manuscripts submitted for publication. The Editorial board will make a decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication and to establish and maintain high standards of procedures for review.

The Editorial board will continuously work to monitor and safeguard publication ethics. The editors of ARFR also maintain the following responsibilities: i) Responsibility and authority to reject and accept articles

ii) Avoiding any conflict of interest with respect to articles they reject or accept

iii) Promoting publication of corrections or retractions when errors are found

iv) Preservation of the anonymity of reviewers.