Submission Guidelines

When submitting a manuscript whose research involved human participants, the author(s) should have obtained approval by their institutional review board (IRB) or research ethics board (REB) and submit, along with their paper, the official approval letter issued by that board.

Further, there should be a statement in the manuscript itself (ideally as a footnote) confirming it has received ethical approval, to include the name of the committee that provided it. An example of such a statement:

“The use of human participants for this study was done in accordance with the ethical standards of NAME OF IRB COMMITTEE and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.”

If you are unable to provide these two items (a statement and the IRB approval letter), please explain in your cover letter the reason for this. Authors are encouraged to also explain the reason for the exemption within the manuscript.

Studies that we deem require IRB approval will not be published without it.

All submissions, whether research papers or Perspectives, are first checked to make sure they meet our citation style guidelines, word-count parameters, and our geographical and subject purviews. Passing this, the submission then undergoes a quick internal pre-review by a member(s) of our Editorial Board (also known as a desk read). This is a relatively quick procedure and should take approximately 7–10 days. There are three possible outcomes of this pre-review: 1) it passes and is sent out for external review; 2) it is declined; 3) it is given a “decline and resubmit” decision. In the case of #2, we will not reconsider the submission. In the case of #3, we feel the submission has some promise but is not quite ready for external review. In this case, we may offer recommendations to strengthen the paper, and offer to reconsider the paper should they be undertaken.

If it passes pre-review, the manuscript is then sent out for double-blind external peer review by at minimum two reviewers. The reviewers assess the scholarly quality of the submission as well as its relevance to Pacific Affairs’ audience and conformity with the goals of the journal. As an interdisciplinary journal, we are open to submissions from all social science disciplines; at the same time we strive to match the submissions with appropriate referees who can speak to both a manuscript’s contributions to the specialized field and also to its accessibility to non-specialist readers.

Please note that the criteria for acceptance for Pacific Affairs are stringent: we publish one or two out of every ten manuscripts that we receive. We carefully assess submissions for their relevance to our mission, for their potential appeal to our readership and empirical and conceptual contribution to the existing body of relevant literature (though the requirement for original empirical contribution may be waived in the case of a Perspectives submission). We look for evidence of deep engagement with local knowledge (including the use of non-English sources), analytical rigour, and critical engagement with an awareness of relevant theories.

Some reasons for rejection include, among others: insufficient development of the argument; lack of depth or originality in empirical research; exclusive emphasis on policy recommendations (unless intended for Perspectives); and frames or central questions that might be more appropriate for country-specific or disciplinary-specific journals.

Peer reviewers will have the following possible recommendations for the manuscript under review:

1. Accept
2. Accept with Revisions
3. Revise and Resubmit
4. Reject

We confirm the receipt of all reviews, and inform all reviewers of our initial and final decisions.

About half of peer-reviewed submissions are rejected in the first round of review, while about half receive a “revise and resubmit” assessment.  If authors receive a “revise and resubmit” decision, they are free to resubmit their manuscript within 4 months from the date of the original editorial decision. In the case of an “accept with revisions,” the author will be given a set deadline to complete relatively minor revisions (usually 2-6 weeks). Such papers do not undergo a second round of external review, but only an editorial read, following which they are accepted if they have met the revision requirements.

“Revise and resubmit” manuscript will go through another round of external double-blind peer review following resubmission. Along with the revised manuscript, the author’s letter detailing the changes made and the initial reviews will be sent back to the original reviewers, if possible. In the re-review stage, the re-reviewers will recommend from the following:

1. Accept
2. Accept with Conditions
3. Reject

Following the receipt of the external re-review reports, the paper will be sent on to a member of our Executive Committee and the Editor for what we call an Editorial Read. Following this, the Editor will come to an editorial decision. The paper will be accepted as is, accepted with conditions, or rejected. If accepted with conditions, minor revisions will be requested with a short deadline, though these final revisions will not require another round of external review. If the paper is rejected, the author will be informed of this, and the review process with us will come to an end. If a paper is given an accept, we will issue the publication agreement. After this stage, our Managing Editor and copyeditor will contact the author(s) regarding copyediting and other technical issues and the paper will be slated for the next available issue.

Average turnaround times: 1) Pre-review, aka desk read: 7–10 days; 2) external peer review: 8–10 weeks; 3) external re-review: 4–6 weeks

The articles in Pacific Affairs do not represent the views of the University of British Columbia or the Institute of Asian Research. The editor is responsible for the selection and acceptance of articles, but responsibility for all opinions expressed in them rests with their authors.

If you would like to be considered as a peer reviewer for manuscripts under consideration by Pacific Affairs, please fill out our form.

Research articles comprise the bulk of Pacific Affairs and so we are always looking for quality submissions that meet our standards for publication. In our eyes, a strong paper must: 

1. provide new empirical information for specialists; 
2. engage with the relevant Asian-language materials and scholarship; 
3. possess a clear argument that is differentiated from or positioned within the existing academic literature on directly relevant subjects; 
4. be encased in argumentation that is consistent, cogent, and fully engaged with the larger theoretical and/or comparative literature on the subject; and 
5. be written in clear and consistent English and have a structure that helps support the argument. 

We strongly believe these five components generate value-added for readers who are specialists of the subject, comparativists, or generalists, and increase the likelihood of cross-disciplinary mobility or traction. Naturally, a paper may not meet all criteria upon first submission, but it should at least have the potential to do so after revisions. 

Pacific Affairs was at its inception a scholarly journal with a policy orientation. During the first two decades of the journal, prominent policy concerns were frequently addressed in shorter essays, particularly the “Notes and Comments” section in each issue, as well as in our trademark research articles. In the 1950s, the balance shifted as the journal moved away from policy debates to concentrate on full-length academic essays and reviews. “Notes and Comments” made very few appearances over the 1960s and ceased by the mid-1970s.

In Winter 2006–2007 (Vol. 79, No. 4), we revived the earlier practice of publishing divergent perspectives on contemporary policy issues. The reincarnated 21st-century “Perspectives” section features clear opinion-driven pieces that aim to bridge academic and policy circles, but remain based on robust and deep use of academic and other empirical sources, consistent and cogent argumentation, and clear and accessible writing.

Our goal is to provide more light than heat, that is, clear, concise, and in-depth reasoning as opposed to sabre-rattling and inflammatory rhetoric, to suggest fresh, reasoned perspectives and to challenge ourselves to reconsider cherished “truths” without excessive emotional baggage. We hope such essays will complement our, longer, more empirical articles.

Note that although Perspectives are more opinion-driven, and in this sense do not carry the obligation for original empirical contribution as do our research articles, their arguments should still be firmly positioned within the relevant theoretical approach and literature.

We invite submissions for standalone perspectives or a set of two countering perspectives, on issues of salience and relevance to contemporary Asia and the Pacific. We welcome suggestions for topics related to contemporary policy that would benefit from energized but reasoned debate.  

In the case of single paper submissions, we may find a contributor who would write a piece that would serve to highlight a different perspective from the original piece, or simply proceed with the essay as a standalone Perspective.  

Each paper should be around 4,500 words, including any footnotes and the reference list (but excluding the title, author name, and the abstract), depending on the structure of the essay and the argument. 

Please specify in your cover letter/email (if submitting by email) or by the checked box (if submitting online) that you are proposing or submitting a piece for the category of Perspectives rather than research articles. 

We do not publish descriptive overviews based on secondary sources or journalistic coverage. Also, our focus is generally on the social sciences, but manuscripts on media, arts, and literature are welcome as long as the main focus is on contextual, rather than textual, analysis, that is, as long as they make a case for social or political relevancy for the contemporary period.

In terms of chronological coverage, Pacific Affairs accepts the submission of manuscripts dealing with the contemporary social, economic, and political affairs of Asia and the Pacific. The “contemporary” is defined to include significant issues within the past five years or the forthcoming five years. Papers focused on historical topics are also encouraged but only if the manuscript makes a strong and sustained case for clear relevance to the contemporary scene. 

Pacific Affairs broadly defines its constituents to include scholars, educators, program directors, academic administrators, consultants, policy makers and practitioners in private or public organizations in which Asia and the Pacific, defined as both a geographic and a conceptual space, is a significant or central concern. 

• Does the manuscript cover a topic and region that falls within our purview? 
• Is the manuscript in .doc, .docx (MS Word), or .txt? 
• Does it conform to our word-length limits? (Including references, but excluding abstract, title, etc. These are between 8000 and 9000 words for research articles, and 4500 words for Perspectives pieces) 
• Is the citation style in Chicago-style in-text with reference list? 
• Do you have a cover letter that provides (a) all the required contact information and (b) your statement confirming that the manuscript is not currently under review by another publisher, will not be sent to another publisher while under review at Pacific Affairs, and has not previously been published (even in another language)? (NOTE: If you are submitting your paper through our website submission portal, this may substitute for the cover letter). 
• Have you included a 250-word abstract and 5–8 keywords? 
• Are all non-English language sources Romanized consistently in a recognized style? 
• Does the manuscript provide new empirical information for specialists? 
• Does the manuscript engage with the relevant Asian-language materials and scholarship? 
• Does the manuscript possess a clear argument that is differentiated from or positioned within the existing academic literature on directly relevant subjects? 
• Is the manuscript encased in argumentation that is consistent, cogent, and fully engaged with the larger theoretical and/or comparative literature on the subject? 
• Is the manuscript written in clear and consistent English and have a structure that helps support the argument? 
• If applicable, have you provided proof of IRB approval and put a statement about this in the paper? And if you cannot provide proof of IRB approval, have you explained why in your cover letter?

Manuscripts that do not conform to these guidelines may be declined (item #1) or may be returned to the author for correction (items #2-12) before the formal review process is initiated.