Policies

Policies

 

 

Aims And Scopes

Research of Finance and Banking (RFB) publishes high-quality and peer-reviewed original research papers that cover a wide range of corporate finance, financial markets, risk, and banking topics, which add new contributions to the literature and practice and provide global perspectives on economics and policy issues in all areas of economics and policy, including but not limited to:

  • Corporate finance
  • Asset pricing and capital market
  • Financial economics and markets
  • International trade and finance
  • Bankruptcy prediction and determinants
  • Financial behavior and psychology
  • Mutual funds management
  • Portfolio and investment management
  • Regulations of financial markets
  • Financial engineering and product
  • Islamic finance and economics
  • Mergers and acquisitions
  • Asset-liability management
  • Monetary system and banking
  • Bank assurance and banking crises
  • Digital banking and financial technology
  • Financing decisions of banks
  • Investment banking
  • Management of financial institutions
  • Corporate governance and compliance
  • Financial Risk management
  • Cryptocurrency and blockchain
  • Venture capital and private equity

Recognizing and promoting the multidisciplinary nature of finance and banking, the journal's editors consider that contributions from all research perspectives are fundamental to advancing knowledge and practice in finance and banking.

Here are 15 categories that describe the focus and scope of Research of Finance and Banking:

  1. Corporate finance: This area focuses on financial management and decision-making within a company, including capital structure, investment decisions, and risk management.
  2. Banking: This category covers various aspects of the banking industry, including commercial banking, investment banking, and central banking.
  3. Investments: This area covers topics related to the analysis and management of investments, such as portfolio management, security analysis, and financial derivatives.
  4. Risk management: This category covers the identification and management of financial risks, including market risk, credit risk, and operational risk.
  5. International finance: This area covers topics related to finance and banking on a global scale, including foreign exchange markets, cross-border investment, and international financial institutions.
  6. Financial markets: This category covers the study of financial markets, including stock markets, bond markets, and derivatives markets.
  7. Behavioral finance focuses on the psychological factors influencing financial decisions and market outcomes.
  8. Microfinance: This category covers financial services to low-income individuals and small businesses in developing countries.
  9. Monetary policy: This area covers central bank policies to influence the supply of money and credit in an economy.
  10. Public finance: This category covers the study of government revenue, spending, and debt, as well as the impact of these factors on the economy.
  11. Real estate finance: This area covers topics related to financing and investment in real estate, including mortgage markets and real estate investment trusts.
  12. Financial regulation: This category covers regulating and supervising financial institutions, markets, and instruments.
  13. Digital banking: This area covers the use of technology in delivering banking services, including online banking, mobile banking, and blockchain and artificial intelligence.
  14. Fintech: This category covers the use of technology to improve financial services, including payment systems, crowdfunding, and digital currencies.
  15. Islamic finance: This area covers the principles and practices of finance and banking based on Islamic law (Sharia), including topics such as Islamic banking, sukuk (Islamic bonds), and ethical investments.

Before submitting your manuscript to RFB, kindly ensure it is written properly in the template. Manuscripts not adhering to the RFB author rules and submission form will likely be revised or rejected in the initial review stage. 

 

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Invited Articles

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

 

 

Peer Review Process

Publication of articles in Research of Finance and Banking (RFB) depends solely on scientific validity and coherence as judged by our editors and/or peer reviewers, who will also assess whether the writing is comprehensible and whether the work is useful to the field. RFB acknowledged the effort and suggestions made by its reviewers. 

Initial evaluation of manuscripts

The Editor will evaluate all manuscripts submitted at a maximum of 4 weeks. Although rare, it is feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to expert reviewers for review. 

Type of peer review

Submitted manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two to three experts who will be asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, whether it duplicates the already published works, and whether or not the manuscript is sufficiently clear for publication. The method is a double-blind peer review. The next rounds of review processes would be done should the first round is inadequate.

Review reports

Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

  1. It is original by stating the objectives and gaps clearly
  2. Is methodologically sound
  3. Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
  4. Have results/findings that are presented and support the conclusions
  5. Correctly references previous relevant work
  6. Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer-review process.

Decision

Reviewers advise the editor, responsible for the final decision to accept, revise, or reject the article. The Editors will reach a decision based on these reports, and, where necessary, they will consult with members of the Editorial Board. The editor's decision is final.

Once the substantive review process is finished, the Editor in Chief decides based on the assigned editor's and peer reviewers' recommendation with several decision possibilities as the following: (1) accept submission = The manuscript would be published without revisions. (2) Revisions Required = The manuscript needs a few revisions but not substantial before publication (minor revision). (3) Resubmit for Review = The manuscript requires substantial revisions and needs to be resubmitted for review before publication (major revision). (4) Resubmit for Elsewhere = The manuscripts were rejected and suggested to be submitted to other journals. (5) Decline Submission = The manuscript is not considered for publication in the journal for several reasons, such as the manuscript's lack of novelty and contribution, the manuscript has been prepared poorly, a very similar study was found, etc.;  It might be associated with the state of the art, novelty, significance of the study, methodology, etc. Usually, it relates to author guidelines compliance. 

Reviewers advise the editor, responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article. The Editors will reach a decision based on these reports, and, where necessary, they will consult with members of the Editorial Board. The editor's decision is final.

Revision Guidelines

The manuscript that obtained the review findings is anticipated to be quickly changed to address the suggestions and issues raised by the review results. The editor would give four weeks to complete the revisions.  However, manuscript proofreading would still be conducted. If the author uploads the updated manuscript at that time, the paper will be considered for publication. Renewal time extensions are available in response to high demand and for a good reason. The revised manuscript is then resubmitted to the Journal's website and/or emailed to info-rfb@sanscientific.com.

The provisions of the updated paper in the Journal are as follows:

If the reviewer comments on a manuscript (comment box or/and the manuscript), the author is requested to respond directly to that comment box/manuscript. The author's response might be information that has been revised or a rationale/argument if the author cannot revise for whatever reason (please can be submitted in the comments field, already available briefly and details).

Please block yellow highlighting while revising on paper or adding new material/ sentences.

Attached is a sample of the revision process paper in the Journal to help the author with the revision process.

Becoming a Reviewer

If you would like to be added to the list of reviewers, don't hesitate to contact us via WhatsApp (+62 81188809646) email at info-rfb@sanscientific.com to obtain the reviewer's form. This form should you entirely and then resend via email. The benefits of reviewing for the journal include seeing and evaluating the latest work in the related research areas at an early stage and being acknowledged in our list of reviewers. You can also cite your work for the journal as part of your professional development requirements. The RFB volunteers contribute their expertise to the science; thus, no financial payments are made.

If you have expertise in finance and banking and are willing to be an editor/reviewer, don't hesitate to contact us via WhatsApp or email.

For Reviewers

Benefits for Reviewers

  • For each manuscript they review, reviewers receive a Certificate of Reviewing. The Reviewer of the Year award is given each month to the best and most timely review, and the winner is announced on the Journal's blog and social media channels.
  • Reviewers with a solid academic track record may apply for Membership in the Editorial Board upon completing several reviews.
  • Reviewers get listed in the annual reviewer's list published each December on the Journal's website to acknowledge the reviewers in the past year.
  • Reviewers get recognition from Publons for their peer review contributions.

 

Publication Frequency

Research of Finance and Banking (RFB) is published twice yearly (semi-annually) in April and October. Publishing online and using a continuous system in each period to accelerate the article's publication is our commitment to the author(s).

 

Open Access Policy

The journal is dedicated to providing full, open access to scholarly papers. All articles are immediately available to all users after publication (without registration on the site and embargo period). Like the others produced by SAN Scientific, this journal is open-access and released under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license, allowing users to share the content without restriction. Open Access provides for the unconstrained sharing of intelligence information and aids in the dissemination of research around the world.

SAN Scientific believes that Open Access is an equitable method of ensuring that scholarly research, typically supported by public institutions, is accessible to everybody. Open Access publications are more likely to be discovered, read, cited, and used for future research than closed journals. We believe that making all our content freely available and reusable is in the best interests of authors, their parent institutions, and the journals themselves.

The advantages of open access include higher citation and usage, speedy publication, speedier impact with permissive licenses, and author copyright retention.

The authors have agreed to publish their works under Creative Commons licenses (CC-BY-SA 4.0). The Copyright section has more information.

Publizieren – Open Access

 

Archiving

 Research of Finance and Banking (RFB) stores back issues and current articles following LOCKSS's idea of keeping many copies of our items on several servers to keep them safe. RFB also implemented PKP Private LOCKSS Network (PLN) preservation function, as seen in The Keepers Registry record at Portal ISSN. The Keepers' records originated from PKP PLN.

 

Publication Ethics

Research of Finance and Banking (RFB) is a peer-reviewed journal. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewer, and the publisher (SAN Scientific). This statement is based on the previous COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (see below) and the current COPE's Core Practices.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

Publishing an article in a peer-reviewed RFB is essential in developing a coherent and respected knowledge network. It directly reflects the quality of the authors' work and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is, therefore, important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher, and the society.

Publisher and Editor

SAN Scientific, the publisher of Research of Finance and Banking, takes its management responsibilities over all stages of publication very seriously, and we are aware of our ethical and other obligations. We are dedicated to ensuring that advertising, reprint, or other commercial money has no bearing on editorial choices. Furthermore, the SAN Scientific and Editorial Board will assist in discussions with other journals and publishers as needed.

Publication decisions: The editor of the RFB is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play:  An editor reviews articles for intellectual substance at any time, regardless of the writers' ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic background, citizenship, or political ideology.

Confidentiality: The editor and any editorial staff must not reveal any information about a submitted article to anyone except the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial consultants, and, if necessary, the publisher.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's research without the author's written consent.

Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with the author, may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors must cite. Any statement that reported an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscripts under consideration.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts with conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any authors, corporations, or institutions connected to the papers.

Authors

Reporting standards: Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data is 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.

Data Access and Retention: Authors are 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 (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should, in any event, 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.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication: An author should not generally publish manuscripts describing the same research in multiple journals or primary publications. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals currently constitutes unacceptable publishing behavior.

Acknowledgment: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have influenced the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed significantly 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 others 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 in 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.

Disclosure: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources should disclose financial support for the research.

Fundamental errors: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

 

Plagiarism And Retraction Policy

The Editorial Board of Research of Finance and Banking (RFB) recognizes that plagiarism is unacceptable and thus establishes the following policy stating specific actions (penalties) upon identification of plagiarism/similarities in articles submitted for publication in RFB. The journals will use Turnitin's originality-checking software to detect similarities between texts in manuscripts and the article's final version. The author(s) will revise (paraphrase) the final article if the similarity check is over 20 percent. The journal may exclude journal templates, common words, and references for similarity tests.

Definition: Plagiarism involves the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's original work."

Policy: Papers must be original, unpublished, and not pending publication elsewhere. Any material taken verbatim from another source needs to be identified as different from the present original text by (1) indentation, (2) use of quotation marks, and (3) identification of the source.

Any text that exceeds use standards (defined as more than two or three sentences or the equivalent thereof) or any graphic material reproduced from another source. It requires permission from the copyright holder and, if possible, the original author(s) and identification of the source (for example, previous publication).

When plagiarism is discovered, the Editor in Chief, who is responsible for the assessment of this work, will agree on measures based on the level of plagiarism found in the paper under the following guidelines:

Level of Plagiarism

Minor: A short article section is plagiarized without significant data or ideas from the other paper.

Action: A warning is given to the authors, and a request is made to revise the text and properly cite the original article.

Intermediate: A medium portion of a paper is plagiarized without proper citation to the original paper

Action: A warning is given to the authors, and a request is made to revise the text and properly cite the original article.

Severe: A significant portion of a paper is plagiarized and involves reproducing original results or ideas presented in another publication.

Action: The paper is rejected, and the authors are forbidden to submit further articles for three years.

It is understood that all authors are responsible for the content of their submitted paper as they all read and understand Copyright and Licensing Terms. All authors will be subject to the same penalty if a penalty is imposed for plagiarism.

Suppose the second case of plagiarism by the same author(s) is identified. In that case, a decision on measures to be enforced will be made by the Editorial board (Editor-in-Chief and Editorial members) with the Chair of the Editor-in-Chief. The author(s) might be forbidden to submit further articles forever.

This policy applies to content duplicated from another publication by the same author (s). If an author uses previously published text or figures, the related paragraphs or figures should be recognized, and the preceding publication should be linked. It is assumed that much of the content was previously published as a review article or an instructional paper.

The author should acknowledge the source of previously published work and acquire permission from the original author and publisher. An author submits a paper to RFB with considerable overlap with a work submitted concurrently to another journal. This overlap is detected during the review process or after both publications have been published and the editor of the other journal is alerted. The matter is being handled as a serious plagiarism case. Significant overlap involves employing identical or almost similar figures and the same or slightly changed text for one-half or more of the article. Self-plagiarism of less than half of the work but over one-tenth of the paper is considered intermediate plagiarism. If you limit self-plagiarism to the methodology section, the case shall be considered minor plagiarism.

Suppose an author uses some of his previously published material to clarify the presentation of new results. The previously published material and the difference from the present publication shall be mentioned in that case. The editor may decide not to accept this paper for publication. The copyright owners must be contacted for permission to reprint if a manuscript was originally published in conference proceedings and is then submitted for publication in the journal in either identical or expanded form. The authors must identify the conference proceedings' name and publication date and obtain permission to republish from the copyright holder.

However, an author shall be permitted to use material from an unpublished presentation, including visual displays, in a subsequent journal publication. In the case of a publication being submitted that was originally published in another language, the original publication's title, date, and journal must be identified by the authors and must obtain the copyright. The editor may accept such a translated publication to bring it to the attention of a wider audience. The editor may select a specific paper that had been published (e.g., a "historic" paper) for republication to provide a better perspective of a series of papers published in one issue of RFB. This republication must be labeled as such, the date and journal of the original publishing must be provided, and the author(s) and publisher's permission must be secured.

The RFB layout editor is responsible for maintaining the list of authors subjected to penalties. It will check that no authors of a submitted paper are on this list. If a banned author is identified, the layout editor will inform the Editor-in-Chief, who will take appropriate measures. This finding will post the policy on the website with the manuscript submission instructions. Upon initial receipt of their original manuscript, a copy will be sent to the authors with the confirmation email.

Retraction and Corrections

Authors are discouraged from withdrawing submitted manuscripts after it is in the publication process (review, copyedit, layout, etc.). During that time, Research of Finance and Banking had spent valuable resources besides time spent in the process. Should, under any circumstances, the author(s) still request for a withdrawal, the author(s) have to send an email to the journal editor using the same email address used in correspondence.

The journal editors shall consider retracting a publication if:

  1. They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of a major error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error) or as a result of fabrication (e.g., of data) or falsification (e.g., image manipulation)
  2. It constitutes plagiarism
  3. The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication)
  4. It contains material or data without authorization for use
  5. Copyright has been infringed, or there is some other serious legal issue (e.g., libel, privacy)
  6. It reports unethical research
  7. It has been published solely based on a compromised or manipulated peer review process.
  8. The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the editor's view, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

Notices of retraction would:

  1. Be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (i.e., in all online versions)
  2. Identify the retracted article (e.g., by including the title and authors in the retraction heading or citing the retracted article).
  3. Be identified as a retraction (i.e., distinct from other types of correction or comment)
  4. Be published promptly to minimize the harmful effects
  5. Be freely available to all readers (i.e., not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers)
  6. State who is retracting the article
  7. State the reason(s) for retraction
  8. Be objective, factual and avoid inflammatory language

Retractions are not usually appropriate if:

  1. The authorship is disputed, but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings
  2. The main findings of the work are still reliable, and corrections could sufficiently address errors or concerns
  3. An editor has inconclusive evidence to support retraction or is awaiting additional information, such as from an institutional investigation.
  4. Author conflicts of interest have been reported to the journal after publication. However, in the editor's view, these are not likely to have influenced interpretations, recommendations, or the article's conclusions.

The journal editors shall consider issuing an expression of concern if:

  1. They receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors
  2. There is evidence that the findings are unreliable, but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case
  3. They believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been or would not be fair and impartial or conclusive
  4. An investigation is underway, but a judgment will not be available for a considerable time

RFB editors shall consider issuing a correction if:

  1. A small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error)
  2. The author/contributor list is incorrect (i.e., a deserving author has been omitted, or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included)

The mechanism follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). For your convenience, please click here to read the document.

 

Repository Policy

Please also read our Copyright and Licensing and the Archiving notice. Research of Finance and Banking follows Sherpa/Romeo's policy. The paper can archive pre-print, post-print, and publisher's version/PDF under the following conditions.

RFB has published an article, the version that has been submitted, accepted for publication, and can use the published version for a variety of share-alike scholarly purposes, subject to full attribution under the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0).

The author (s) may deposit and use the document as follows:

  1. On the personal website and books
  2. On the company or institutional repository
  3. On the author's preferred subject repositories
  4. On Social Collaboration Networks (SCNs) that have signed up to the Voluntary STM Sharing Principles
  5. With individuals requesting personal use for teaching and training within the author’s institution and as part of an author’s grant applications or theses/doctorate submissions.

Exceptions to this policy include:

  1. The systematic upload or collation of Jurnal Manajemen's articles across repositories,
  2. Any use of the documents in conjunction with advertising,
  3. Any use of the documents for promotional purposes by for-profit organizations,
  4. Any use would confer monetary reward, commercial gain, or commercial exploitation.

For any queries concerning repositories, don't hesitate to contact the journal’s editor at https://sanscientific.com/journal/index.php/rag/about/contact. Please consult our policies recorded on Sherpa Romeo's website to prevent disputes or doubts.

 

Author Fees

Article processing, submission, or reviewing of the articles incurred no fees. Under the condition above, we are waiving the fee in full for any authors to submit papers to Research of Finance and Banking.

Each article will be charged an article processing fee (APC) of IDR 0,00 for publication.

We provide free-of-charge translation and/or proofreading of manuscript services upon request from the authors. Don't hesitate to WhatsApp and/or email info-rfb@sanscientific.com with your interest in printed copies or translation and further details.