Russian Japanology Review

Advanced search

Editorial Policies

Aim and Scope

The edition provides an English speaking  platform for publication of original works in the sphere of Japanese studies, including history, politics, diplomacy, economics, society, culture and literature of traditional and contemporary Japan. Besides, the edition presents English translations of Russian academic publications in the sphere of Japanese studies published in Yearbook Japan, e-journal ‘Japanese Studies in Russia’ and ‘Orientalia et Classica. Papers of the Institute for Oriental and Classical Studies”.


Section Policies


Publication Frequency

2 times a year


Open Access Policy

This is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.

Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.

For more information please read BOAI statement.



  • Russian State Library (RSL)
  • National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)



The Russian Japanology Review adheres to the single-blind reviewing policy in which the identity of the Reviewer is always concealed. This guarantees the unbiased motivated reviews and assures a freedom for critical comments concerning the content of the articles to be published.

The Editor from Editorial Board who is responsible for the subsequent section of the Journal chooses one Reviewer for each manuscript received. The Reviewer can be chosen both from members of the Editorial Board or from well-known specialists in the academic profile of the Journal . The selection of Reviewers must not give rise to any conflict of interests.

In case a manuscript is submitted by a member of the Editorial Board, the Reviewer is appointed by the Editor-in-Chief. The Reviewers for the manuscripts of the Editor-in-Chief are selected by the Deputy Chief Editor. The Editor-in-Chief and the Deputy Chief Editor bear personal responsibility for the impartiality of their choice which must not give birth to any conflict of interest.

The Editor sends review requests to the chosen Reviewer, asking to give a reply within two weeks. Reviewers use the following form [doc], for their peer-review. If there is no reply from the Reviewers, the Editor sends a reminder after 14 days. If none of the Reviewers replies within one month, the Editorial Board assigns new Reviewers.

Received reviews are examined at the Editorial Board meetings, where quality of the reviews is estimated and a decision is made on accepting, rejecting, or revising the manuscripts. New Reviewers are assigned for the manuscript in the case of controversial comments from the Reviewers. When revised manuscript is received, the Editorial Board can either accept it or send it to a Reviewer for repeated revision.

In general, the decision-making process usually takes about two months. Within this period, the Editorial Board considers all the feedback from peer reviewers and makes an informed decision to accept or decline the manuscript. Thereafter one of the following four decisions is made: (1) to accept manuscript for publication without further development by author; (2) to accept manuscript for publication after its development by author; (3) to send manuscript for a profound development and then, to reviewers; (4) to reject publication of manuscript. In the case that the manuscript is declined, the Editor provides its author with a grounded conclusion containing the reasons behind the rejection.

The Executive Secretary of Russian Japanology Review  sends notifications to the authors about all changes of their manuscript: about successful submission, assigning reviewers, revision request, acceptance or rejection.


Violations of publishing ethics and the procedure for retraction of articles

Complaints about violations of publishing ethics can be submitted in written form to the email address The complaint must clearly describe the alleged violation and provide information confirming this fact. When a complaint is received, the Editor must record the date of its receipt and ensure that it is thoroughly and objectively considered.

Complaints on publishing ethics violation may be connected with incorrect citing of information and plagiarism (using other authors’ content and conclusions without references to their papers), duplication of one’s own publications, inclusion of unreliable and/or false data in publications, and some other violations. The Editorial Board will request clarification, without involving persons who may have a conflict of interest with one of the parties.

If the consideration of a complaint or the identification of cases of violation of publishing ethics require an expert examination of the article and related materials, the Chief Editor forms an expert Commission consisting of the Chairman (the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Chief Editor of the journal) and members of the Commission (not less than 2 members of the Editorial Board). The Editorial Board guarantees the confidentiality, fairness, and impartiality of all stages of investigation.

In case of revealing the facts of plagiarism, fraud, or other facts of inacceptable behavior and violation of the publication ethics, the expert Commission reports the matter to the Editorial Board which may impose the following sanctions upon the authors:

  • reject the publication of the submitted manuscript;
  • prohibit publishing the article in the Journal during a certain period;
  • if occasionally any violations of the publication ethics, improper borrowings, duplicate publications or other cases of unethical behavior are discovered after an article has been published, the Editorial Board may retract the publication.

The decision on retraction of the article must be formulated in the Protocol of the meeting of the Editorial Board. The decision will indicate the reason of retraction (in the case of plagiarism detection with reference to the sources of borrowing) and the date of retraction. The Article will remain on the website of the Journal, but the electronic version of the text will be marked with the inscription "RETRACTED" and the date of retraction, the same mark being applied to the article and the table of contents of the issue.

If the Editorial Board decides to revoke the text of the article on the basis of its expertise or information received by the editor, the author / coauthors will be informed and asked for their reasoned opinion on the validity of the decision. If the author / co-authors ignore the editorial request, the Editorial Board will revoke the article without consulting the author. If the Editorial Board receives the appeal with grounds for article retraction, the editors inform the author of the appeal about the terms of its consideration. The maximum period for consideration may not exceed three months.

Author(s) shall have the right to appeal a decision on violation sanctions. All appeals must be submitted in written form to the Editorial Board within 30 days of notification of the decision. The appeal must include a rebuttal of the decision, explaining in detail the author(s) rationale for why the decision was in error.


Publishing Ethics

Russian Japanology Review is committed to the values of research reputation and high standards of publication activities. The editorial staff takes into account the best international and Russian publishing practices. The Editorial Board of the Journal in its activities is guided by generally accepted in the international scientific community standards of editorial and publishing ethics, peer review and authorship of scientific publications, which are enshrined in the Declaration of the Association of scientific editors and publishers (ASEP), and in recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and Publishing Ethics Resource Kit for editors (PERK) developed by Elsevier publisher.

Russian Japanology Review takes as a premise that authors and peer reviewers are familiar with the authors’ ethical principles and peer review ethical principles reflected in the abovementioned documents and the recommendations of the Committee.

By submitting a manuscript the author confirms that he/she possesses author’s rights for it, as well as agrees to comply with the Criteria of Authorship and Authors’ Ethical Principles.

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works. If the authors have used the work or a part of works of other authors, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Russian Japanology Review denounces all forms of publication malpractice, including plagiarism, duplicate submission, misappropriation of research results and fraud. Plagiarism in all its 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), constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. The Journal ensures the integrity and transparency of each published article. In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism the publisher will take all appropriate measures, including the prompt publication of a correction statement or, in the most severe cases, the retraction of the affected work.

As part of its ethical code the Editorial Board of the Journal is bound by the principle of confidentiality regarding individual articles under review or in the process of publication, as well as their Authors and Reviewers.

Russian Japanology Review does not accept payments for publication. Any attempt by authors or other interested parties to offer such payment could result in rejection of the submitted manuscript.

Published articles may not represent the point of view of the Founders, Editorial Council or Editorial Board.



The Journal Authors should ensure that their works are entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process. They 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. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Plagiarism in all its forms is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

 Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained by private communication, correspondence or discussions with third parties should not be used without the express written consent of the correspondent source. 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. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others should always be given. Authors should disclose 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. 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 Editor or Publisher and cooperate with the Editor to retract or correct the paper.



The Journal should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Any manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others than the corresponding Author, Reviewers, potential Reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the Publisher, as appropriate.

As a supervisor of the single-blind peer review process, Editors are obliged to provide for conditions excluding any conflict of interests between the sides resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. Author or co-author of the reviewed work cannot act as Reviewer, as well as scientific supervisor of scientific degree candidates. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if conflicts of interest are revealed after publication. In case a conflict of interest is discovered, even years after publication, a corresponding correction must be applied.

Editors should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour should be looked. If the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, apology or other note, may be relevant.



Reviewers are obliged  to give objective and impassionate decisions; to ensure confidentiality in his work with manuscripts and not to show or discuss them with others, except as authorized by the editor; not to use the information obtained in the course of expertize for self-profit; to excuse himself from the review process if the Reviewer expert feels lack of qualification to review the manuscript; to express opinions or draw conclusions basing on factual information and prove decisions adopted; to help the author improve the paper suggestions; to attract the Editor’s attention to significant or fractional similarity of the manuscript with any other paper, as well as the absence of references to ideas, conclusions and arguments in the papers already published by the author seeking submission or by other authors.



Russian Japanology Review publisher is committed to work with Editors to define clearly the respective roles of publisher, of partner institutions and of editors. The Publisher pursues the aim of ensuring the autonomy of editorial decisions, without influence from advertisers or other commercial partners. The Publisher ensures the integrity and transparency of each published article with respect to: conflicts of interest, publication and research funding, publication and research ethics, cases of publication and research misconduct, confidentiality, authorship, article corrections, clarifications and retractions, and timely publication of content. In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of a correction statement or erratum or, in the most severe cases, the retraction of the affected work.



  • Association of Japanologists


Author fees

Publication in “Russian Japanology Review" is free of charge for all the authors.

The journal doesn't have any Article processing charges.

The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.


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.


Plagiarism detection

“Russian Japanology Review" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.


Preprint and postprint Policy

Prior to acceptance and publication in “Russian Japanology Review", authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.

As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in “Russian Japanology Review" we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.

Glossary (by SHERPA)

Preprint - In the context of Open Access, a preprint is a draft of an academic article or other publication before it has been submitted for peer-review or other quality assurance procedure as part of the publication process. Preprints cover initial and successive drafts of articles, working papers or draft conference papers.
Postprint - The final version of an academic article or other publication - after it has been peer-reviewed and revised into its final form by the author. As a general term this covers both the author's final version and the version as published, with formatting and copy-editing changes in place.


Revenue Sources

The publication of the journal is financed by the funds of the parent organization, at the expense of the publisher, publication of advertising materials, publication of reprints, article processment charges.