About the Journal
The Journal Editor encourages the submission of research that goes beyond shareholder wealth maximization models. That includes papers exploring new regulation that represents the interest of all stakeholders in society. The Journal welcomes debates on preventive regulation, including prevention of financial crisis, and those considering questions addressing lack of competition and abuse of monopoly power. Papers that examine the application of modern technology in the regulation are also welcome.
The Journal follows the spirit of the United Nations Principles of Responsible Investing.
The Journal encourages submissions of papers based on quantitative, qualitative, mixed research methods. It is open to commentary, conceptual, review articles, and research papers.
Journal of Financial Regulation and Risk Management is an independent, peer-reviewed forum for the dissemination of research relating to all aspects of financial regulation and risk management. The Journal aspires to become the authoritative resource on financial regulations and the latest practice in the area of risk management by including peer-reviewed original research, feature articles, and reviews on issues from researchers, financial regulators, central banks and financial risk professionals. The journal, therefore, aims to provide a rigorous forum for the publication of high quality peer-reviewed theoretical and empirical research articles, by both academic and industry experts, related to financial risks and risk management. The journal focuses on financial regulations and the managment of risks, as well as on inter-related topics including, but not limited to, the regulation of financial markets and institutions, risk management and analysis, systemic risk, asset and liability management, asset pricing, behavioural finance, capital structure, corporate finance, corporate governance, derivative pricing and hedging, forecasting, empirical finance, financial economics, fund management, high-frequency trading, financial intermediation, hedge funds, investments, liquidity, political risk, portfolio optimization; and term structure models.
General Policies and Peer-Review Process
The journal welcomes articles, including review articles, empirical and conceptual, which display thoughtful, accurate research and be rigorous in all regards. The journal considers original research manuscripts provided that the work reports scientifically sound experiments and provides a substantial amount of new information. While short communications or reviews of preliminary, but significant, results will also be considered, authors are expected not to unnecessarily divide their work into several related manuscripts.
All manuscripts are considered on the strict condition that they have not been submitted elsewhere, that they have not been published already, nor are they under consideration for publication, or in press elsewhere.
All papers will be subjected to confidential peer review by experts in the field and, on the basis of reviewers' feedback; papers will be accepted unconditionally, accepted subject to revision or rejected. The journal operates a double-blind peer review system whereby each paper is sent to two referees. The editor, with the assistance of editorial board members, choose reviewers whose expertise most closely matches the manuscript’s topic and invite them to review the paper, taking into account the number of manuscripts sent to a reviewer so as not to overburden any one expert
The journal does not have any submission fee or article processing charge. To avoid processing delays all submitted papers must follow the author guidelines.
Submissions that do not follow the guidelines or is not judged suitable for the standards of the journal will not be considered. Once accepted, individual articles are typeset, proofed and published on a rolling basis, so that articles can be downloaded and cited quickly. The journal subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the works. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Any other form of specific personal contribution should be included in the Acknowledgements section of the manuscript, which must be provided under the subheading ‘Acknowledgements'. All requested changes to the author list after submission will be queried by the publisher and you will be asked to provide further explanation.
All authors are expected to fulfill the criteria described below:
- Each author is expected to have made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work
- OR the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data
- OR creation of new software used in the work
- OR have drafted the work or substantially revised it
- AND has approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version that involves the author’s contribution to the study
- AND agrees to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature.
- Exclusion from authorship of individuals who have made author-level contributions is not permitted.
Other individuals who have participated in generation of the research paper but who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the acknowledgments section with a brief indication of the nature of their contribution. Every author of content submitted to the journal is required to disclose affiliations, funding sources, and competing interests that might be perceived as sources of bias related to the reported research and/or presented content.
Corresponding authors are expected to:
- Ensure that all listed authors have received and approved the manuscript prior to submission
- Receive all substantive correspondence with editors as well as full reviews
- Ensure that original data/code upon which the submission is based are preserved and retrievable for reanalysis
- Confirm that the presentation in the paper of the data/code accurately reflects the original sources
- Foresee and minimize obstacles to the sharing of data/code
- Ensure the entire author group is fully aware of and in compliance with best practices
Any changes in authorship must be approved in writing by all of the original authors. The editor of the journal will send an email to the corresponding author to confirm receipt of each paper. However, submission of a paper that has not been approved by all authors may result in immediate rejection without appeal. Authors submitting works to the journal do so on the understanding if it is discovered that the COPE principles have not been adhered to, action will be taken following the COPE guidelines, which may or may not include retraction.
Editor, Associate Editors and Reviewers
All manuscripts submitted for publication in the journal are strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts, including review articles and invited papers. The Editor of the journal is responsible to perform an initial check of a manuscript’s suitability upon receipt and to organise the peer-review process performed by independent experts and collect at least two review reports per manuscript. The Editor may decide to organise a second round of peer-review if necessary, before a final decision is made. The final decision is made by the editor with or without the assistance of the members of the Editorial Board. Editor and the Associate Editors have sole responsibility for the acceptance or rejection of a paper. While they may seek guidance via peer review, they may reject a paper without review if considered inappropriate for the journal.
Reviewers form the cornerstone of the journal's peer-review process, and their evaluations ensure the quality of published research. Therefore, the editor seek reviewers who do not have conflicts of interest with the authors or reported research in the manuscripts they read. In addition to this precaution, reviewers are required to disclose any conflicts with the evaluation of the paper, and this information is taken into account by the editors when decisions are made. Although reviews are confidential, all anonymous comments should be courteous and capable of withstanding public scrutiny. Reviewers are requested to provide two sets of comments: one for the author and the other for the editor only.
The journal follows the Council of Science Editors' principles on the peer-review process and the reviewer roles and responsibilities as outlined below:
- Reviewers who realize that their expertise is limited have a responsibility to make their degree of competence clear to the editor. Reviewers need not be expert in every aspect of an article’s content, but they should accept an assignment only if they have adequate expertise to provide an authoritative assessment. A reviewer without the requisite expertise is at risk of recommending acceptance of a submission with substantial deficiencies or rejection of a meritorious paper. In such cases, the reviewer should decline the review.
- Reviewer comments and conclusions should be based on an objective and impartial consideration of the facts, exclusive of personal or professional bias. All comments by reviewers should be based solely on the paper’s scientific merit, originality, and quality of writing as well as on the relevance to the journal’s scope and mission, without regard to race, ethnic origin, sex, religion, or citizenship of the authors.
- A reviewer should not take scientific, financial, personal, or other advantage of material available through the privileged communication of peer review, and every effort should be made to avoid even the appearance of taking advantage of information obtained through the review process. Potential reviewers who are concerned that they have a substantial conflict of interest should decline the request to review and/or discuss their concerns with the editor.
- To the extent possible, the review system should be designed to minimize actual or perceived bias on the reviewer’s part. If reviewers have any interest that might interfere with an objective review, they should either decline the role of reviewer or disclose the conflict of interest to the editor and ask how best to address it. Some journals require reviewers to sign disclosure forms that are similar to those signed by authors.
- Reviewers are responsible for acting promptly, adhering to the instructions for completing a review, and submitting it in a timely manner. Failure to do so undermines the review process. Every effort should be made to complete the review within the time requested. If it is not possible to meet the deadline for the review, then the reviewer should promptly decline to perform the review or should inquire whether some accommodation can be made to resolve the problem.
Peer reviewers are expected to make every reasonable effort to ensure the following criteria are taken into account for those submitted papers they have agreed to peer review:
- Unbiased consideration should be given to each paper, judging each on its merits without regard to the race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author.
- Papers should be dealt with and processed with reasonable speed and efficiency.
- The paper will be judged objectively.
- The peer-review process will be kept confidential.
- Conflicts of interest must be declared.
- Referees' judgments must be explained and supported. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported must be accompanied by the relevant citation, and unsupported assertions must be avoided.
- While the review of a manuscript may justify criticism, even severe criticism, under no circumstances is personal or malicious criticism of the author appropriate or acceptable.
Members of the Editorial Board are chosen for their expertise in key areas related to the journal or chosen for their international presence in the field. The Board is responsible for making decisions concerning publication for submitted manuscripts and certifies that any commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. Members of the Board work directly with the Editor to develop the journal and promote new initiatives. They may also take responsibility for key activities linked to the journal, for example the Associate Editor or Section Editor. The role of the Editorial Board is:
- To offer expertise in their specialist area
- To review submitted manuscripts
- To advise on journal policy and scope
- To work with the Editor to ensure ongoing development of the journal
- To identify topics for Special Issues of the journal or recommend a Conference which would promote the journal, which they might also help to organize and/or guest edit
- To attract new and established authors and article submissions
The Board may undergo renewal after a set of period determined by the Editor, which may involve removing some individjuals, inviting others, and renewing some existing members for another term.
Declaration/Conflict of interest policy
The journal does not discriminate on the basis of the source of material submitted, provided full disclosure is provided and appropriate declaration of interest statements and acknowledgments are included in published paper. Thus, we require that authors include comprehensive ‘Declaration of Interest' and ‘Acknowledgements' sections in submitted papers. All authors must disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence (bias) their work. It is the sole responsibility of authors to disclose any affiliation with any organization with a financial interest, direct or indirect, in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (such as consultancies, employment, paid expert testimony, honoraria, speakers bureaus, retainers, stock options or ownership, patents or patent applications or travel grants) that may affect the conduct or reporting of the work submitted. All sources of funding are to be explicitly stated.
Authors should anonymize their manuscript for double-blind peer review by making sure that they:
- Do not include author names or affiliations anywhere in the manuscript
- Povide a separate title page giving all the author names and affiliations
- Do not include any author names in the Acknowledgments section in the manuscript on submission
- Do not include work in the reference list that has not yet been accepted for publication
- Avoid using terminology that might reveal their identity when referring to their own work within their article.
By submitting their article to Journal of Financial Regulation and Risk Management, authors warrant that it is their original work, and that they have secured the necessary written permission from the appropriate copyright owner or authority for the reproduction of any text, illustration, or other material. If any paper submitted to the journal is found to have breached any of these conditions it will be rejected. If it has been published, failure to adhere to the above conditions will result in the Editor publishing an appropriate correction, a statement of retraction, or enacting a withdrawal of the paper.