TitleNew Japanese Civil Society: Kobe Earthquake of 1995 and Fukushima Accident of 2011 as Focal Points in the Development of the Japanese Civil Society After WW II
Journal titleRocznik Orientalistyczny/Yearbook of Oriental Studies
KeywordsShimin shakai ; Japanese voluntarism and activism ; new civil society ; volunteer revolution ; denuclearization ; demonstrations ; NPOs ; NGOs ; Kobe earthquake 1995 ; Sendai earthquake 2011 ; Fukushima accident ; March 11 ; ‘nuclear village’ ; Japanese elections of 2012 and 2016
Divisions of PASNauki Humanistyczne i Społeczne
PublisherThe Committee of Oriental Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences and The Publishing House ELIPSA
TypeArtykuły / Articles
SourceRocznik Orientalistyczny/Yearbook of Oriental Studies; 2017; T. LXX; No 2
Aims and scopeSince its launch in 1914 Rocznik Orientalistyczny (Yearbook of Oriental Studies), a semi-annual double-blind review journal has established a reputation for publishing original articles, as well as book reviews, on the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. The Journal provides high-quality academic research on the history, religions, art, culture, languages and literature of these regions. The approach is interdisciplinary, combining perspectives from linguistics, literary studies, archaeology, history, anthropology, philosophy, sociology, culture and religion. RO will build on this solid foundation, contributing to the further understanding of the areas of interest.
Rocznik Orientalistyczny (Yearbook of Oriental Studies) publishes manuscripts in English, German, French and Russian with abstracts in English. The Journal takes pride in being able to provide all kinds of fonts used for transcribing the languages of Asia and Africa.
Abstracting & Indexing
Rocznik Orientalistyczny/Yearbook of Oriental Studies is indexed in databases:
AWOL - The Ancient World Online
ICI Journals Master List
MIAR - Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals
Slavic Humanities Index
Publication Ethics PolicyPublishing ethics
The Editorial Board of Rocznik Orientalistyczny/Yearbook of Oriental Studies urge the authors to present the results of their original work in a transparent and reliable way, thereby preventing any cases of ghostwriting and guest authorship (honorary authorship). The term ghostwriting describes a situation in which a person has significantly contributed to a publication without being listed as co-author or without his/her name being mentioned in the acknowledgement. Guest authorship, in turn, means that a person’s contribution to a publication is negligible or none at all, yet such a person is listed as co-author or author.
All cases of misconduct will be publicised by the Editorial Board, which includes notifying the relevant institutions (the authors’ employers, academic societies, etc.).
The editorial staff of Rocznik Orientalistyczny/Yearbook of Oriental Studies act in line with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. All parties involved in the publication process (the editor, the author, the reviewer, the publisher) should be familiar with ethical standards observed in the journal.
Duties of Editors:
1) The editors have the authority to decide which of the submitted papers should be accepted for publication (taking into account: the text conformity with the profile of the journal, the academic importance of the contribution, the originality as well as clarity of the input). When making decisions, the editor should be guided by the journal’s policy, as well as by legal regulations on matters such as infringement of copyright and plagiarism.
2) The editors assess the submitted manuscripts on basis of their scholarly merit, without regard to race, gender, sexual preferences, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political views of the authors (fair play).
3) The editors do not attempt to influence the journal’s ranking by artificially increasing any journal metric, i.e. the editor shall not require that references to that (or any other) journal’s articles be included except for genuine scholarly reasons. Authors should not be required to include references to the editors’ articles.
4) The editors do not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers, and – in special circumstances – other editorial staff. In exceptional circumstances, the editor may share limited information with editors of other journals where deemed necessary to investigate suspected research misconduct.
5) The editors ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. The editorial board will require all collaborators to disclose any competitive interests and will make every effort to prevent it. If necessary, steps to be taken include retracting a manuscript or publishing a corrective statement.
6) The editor can retract an article when: – research results have already been published elsewhere; – the manuscript contains plagiarism or otherwise breaches ethical principles; – there is clear evidence that the results of research are unreliable or that data has been fabricated. A notification of manuscript retraction should be understood as a de facto removal of the text. Such a notification should inform who has made the decision and for what reasons is the text being retracted.
7) The editors reserve the right to edit the texts for length, stylistic details, conformance with style guides etc.
Duties of Authors:
1) An author of the article is considered to be an individual who had a decisive influence on the final shape of the text in the version in which it is to be published.
2) If more than one person has been involved in writing the text and/or in the research underlying it, the contributions of all persons should be specified in the statement submitted together with the manuscript.
3) 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 and permission has been obtained where necessary.
4) An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable. Publication of some kinds of articles 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. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
5) If any unethical conduct on the part of the author of the publication is revealed– such as plagiarism, data falsification or re-publication of a previously published work or part of it (the so-called self-plagiarism)– the editors ask such an author for explanations and then may take appropriate steps in line with the COPE guidelines. At a later stage of the proceedings, this may mean notifying the authorities of the author’s academic unit, rejecting a given article, and refusal to publish any future texts by that person in the journal.
6) In line with COPE guidelines, any change to authorship information requires written consent from all co-authors. This should be expressed by each author in a separate (electronic) letter of consent addressed to the editor-in-chief. The consent of all co-authors to changing authorship information of a submitted or already printed paper must take written form. If authors cannot reach agreement on this, they should consult the authorities of their home institution(s).
Duties of Reviewers:
1) Reviewers influence the decisions made by the editor-in-chief. Their comments on the subject matter can also help the authors improve their manuscripts.
2) In the reviews the quality of the reported research should be judged objectively. Reviewers should explain their judgment clearly and support it.
3) A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and should inform the editor, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
4) If a reviewer suggests that an author includes citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing the reviewer’s citation count or enhancing the visibility of their work (or that of their associates).
5) Reviewers are obliged to submit their opinion statements timely. If for any reason (from scholarly ones to time pressure) they cannot meet the deadline or cannot undertake the reviewing at all, they should notify the editorial board immediately.
6) All materials sent for review should be treated as confidential. Disclosing their contents to third parties (with the exception of persons authorised) is inadmissible.
7) The principle of preventing conflicts of interest:
A conflict of interest exists when an author (or the research unit which he or she represents), a reviewer or an editor is engaged in personal or economic relations which may inappropriately influence his/her actions. Each author or reviewer noticing an existing conflict of interest is obliged to report it to the editors.
Peer-review ProcedureReview process
The manuscripts should be original and inventive, and significantly add to existing research.
Submitted articles will undergo a double, anonymous and independent peer-review process (the identity of the reviewed author will not be disclosed to reviewers, nor vice versa). At least two reviewers will be appointed by the editors among specialists in fields related to the topic of the article. The reviewers will not be members of the journal’s editorial staff and will not be affiliated with the same institution as the author. At least one reviewer will be affiliated to a foreign institution, other than the nationality of the author. The reviewers will be appointed in such a way as to avoid any conflict of interest (understood as relations between the author and the reviewer: personal relations like kinship, legal relations, conflict, subordination in a workplace; direct scholarly co-operation in the period of two years preceding the reviewing process). The review must contain an explicit conclusion stating whether the article should or should not be accepted for publication. The list of reviewers will be published at the end of each year in one of Rocznik Orientalistyczny/Yearbook of Oriental Studies volumes.
As a result of the review process, authors may be expected to modify their articles according to the recommendations of the reviewers. Amended articles could be accompanied by a cover letter explaining how the comments were addressed and the changes made. Editorial board retains a right to publish, to reject or to return an article for modifications. In the event of an ambivalent publishing review, the text is submitted for another evaluation. Articles on which two negative opinions have been passed will not be accepted for publication. The authors of negatively assessed texts will be notified as soon as the reviews reach the editorial board.
Rocznik Orientalistyczny/Yearbook of Oriental Studies has neither processing charges nor submission charges.
A different review process conducted by the editorial board applies to book reviews.
The review of an article submitted to Rocznik Orientalistyczny / Yearbook of Oriental Studies - form