FRAMEwork

FRAMEwork is a bi-annual, peer-reviewed journal publication of scholarly works on communication, new media, and social change in Asia-Pacific. It aims to put forward alternative frameworks that explain communicative phenomenon and to accommodate culture-specific works within the region. Such goals allow communication scholars from Asia-Pacific to open discursive spaces not just to interrogate the universality of Western epistemologies but also to highlight scholarly works that propagate communication scholarship through the use of alternative theoretical lenses.

We accept submissions that tackle but not limited to current trends, trailblazing works, controversies (or debates) in communication in the Asia-Pacific region. The unprecedented rise of new media technologies and their impacts on the socio-political-economic situations in the region as well as the pervasive role of communication sub-disciplines such as journalism, public relations, marketing, film, advertising, development communication, rhetoric, interpersonal communication, organizational communication, and intercultural communication in the mundane and professional lives of peoples of Asia-Pacific should be investigated using alternative communication frameworks. Furthermore, we invite submissions on social change or advocacy communication as a special feature that foregrounds voices from the margins, challenging the dominant top-down view of communication. This special feature highlights the role of communication in facilitating social change.

While it is true that communication as a discipline originated from the West, its practice and theoretical expansions have been established elsewhere in the world. Asia-Pacific hails communication scholars whose contributions to the discipline have either interrogated the universality of Western epistemologies of communication or created alternative frameworks that help us better understand how communication works from this side of the world. Framework aims to publish scholarly articles regarding but not limited to current trends, trailblazing works, controversies (or debates) in communication in the Asia-Pacific region.

This journal publication that puts together scholarly works from traditional communication, new media, and advocacy communication offers alternative frameworks that explain communicative phenomenon in Asia-Pacific and accommodates culture-specific scholarly works. It would be interesting to see how communication scholars do not merely subscribe to the Western constructions of knowledge, but how they attempt to establish epistemologies anchored on the cultural idiosyncrasies and complexities in the Asia-Pacific region. The unprecedented rise of new media technologies and their impacts on the socio-political-economic situations in the region as well as the pervasive role of traditional media in the mundane and professional lives of people ought to be investigated using alternative lenses of communication. Such scholarly practice should help enrich our academic discourses on communication that digress from, interrogate, and challenge Western epistemologies.

Furthermore, we believe that communication should not just be a discipline that intellectualizes human communication, but also one that facilitates social change. Because Framework aims to foreground alternative lenses in communication, it is appropriate that a bottom-up approach to understanding communicative phenomenon is foregrounded as well through its special feature on advocacy communication. Such feature that highlights voices from the margins challenges the dominant top-down view of communication and helps facilitate social change at the same time.

Research papers of 7,000-8,000 words must be submitted to framework@feu.edu.ph to facilitate the peer review process. For concerns regarding submission, please send an email to the same email address.

Style

Use the 7^th edition of the APA style guide for in-text citations, graphs, images, tables, and bibliographic entries. Use American spelling.

Format

• Write in American English.
• Indicate the title at the topmost, middle part of the first page.
• Include a 250-word abstract with 5 keywords that are not found in the abstract on the first page.
• Begin the first chapter on the second page.
• Use Times New Roman, font 12, double space.
• Indicate the pagination on the upper rightmost corner of the page.
• Include the appendices in the submission.
• Save the file on PDF

Note: DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION IN THE ABSTRACT BUT INCLUDE THEM IN THE EMAIL WITH THE PAPER TITLE.

The reviewers will be assigned by the editor. The basis of the assignment is the reviewers’ expertise on the communication sub-discipline to be reviewed. The editorial advisory board may recommend names of potential reviewers to the editor in case the assigned peer reviewer is not deemed fit for the paper topic. The reviewer may decline the assignment if his/her expertise and the paper topic are not aligned. In such case, the editor assigns a new reviewer or seeks the recommendation of the editorial advisory board.

The reviewers are given three weeks to read the article. In case they cannot meet the three-week deadline, the reviewers must inform the editor via email. They will be given another week or two to provide feedback about the article. Once finished, they must fill out the form indicating the title of the article, the article’s control number, and the comments for revisions.

The editor collates the three reviews and forwards them to the author. Based on the recommendations of at least two of the three reviewers, the editor decides whether to accept or reject the paper. Once accepted with revisions, the manuscript must be revised following the comments of the reviewers. The author must submit to the editor the revised manuscript with the original text. The revised manuscript with the original paper is forwarded to the editors for review. When further revisions must be done, the reviewer-editor-author process is done. Revisions can be made thrice, beyond that means rejection of the manuscript.

Prior to submitting the final manuscript, the author must send it to a proofreader. The proofreader makes the necessary modifications in terms of grammar, vocabulary, punctuations, and spelling. The proofreader may contact the author for clarifications regarding the paper. After proofreading, the proofreader sends back the manuscript to the author for checking.

The editor-in-chief decides on the final entries to the publication.

In case the editor, the reviewer, the editorial board, or the reader of a published paper find that the author violates ethical practices, the case should be taken up to the ethics committee, which comprises three editorial board members, the editor-in-chief, and the managing editor. The author will be summoned for a discussion online or through email.  The unpublished manuscript is rejected when the author is found guilty of ethical violations. In the case of a published author, the manuscript will be retracted.

In case the authors feel that the editor and/or the reviewers have violated ethical standards, they may write a formal letter of complaint to the editor-in-chief. The ethics committee will convene to discuss the matter. The editor and/or reviewers will have to respond to the complaint either through an online meeting or email. The ethics committee shall decide whether to censure the editor and/or reviewers or dismiss the case. 

Framework upholds the highest ethical standards on journal publication. It is through ethical publication that we are able to maintain the integrity of our processes, people, and output. At FRAMEwork, stakeholders including authors, reviewers, and editors observe ethical practices as follows.

Authors:
As a matter of academic integrity:

1. Only originally written manuscripts are submitted for review.
2. The submitted manuscripts are not published in any platform whether online or print.
3. Plagiarized work is not condoned. All statements borrowed from another author must be properly cited using the APA style guide. When found guilty of plagiarism, the paper is automatically rejected, or retracted when detected after publication.
4. Data fabrication is not condoned. Falsification of data and results, reporting of results that did not go through the data collection process, and reporting of unfounded data gathering procedures among other data fabrication mechanisms that provide inaccurate information and deliberately mislead the readers automatically mean rejection of the paper.  

Editors:

1. As a matter of fairness, all submissions must be evaluated on the basis of merit and without prejudice against race, religion, color, political affiliation, sexual orientation, and nationality.
2. As a matter of confidentiality, editors must protect the identity of authors and reviewers at all costs.
3. As a matter of integrity, editors must not use any part of the pre-published manuscript for purposes other than publication in FRAMEwork.

Reviewers:

1. As a matter of integrity, reviewers must refuse the assignment when it doesn’t align with their expertise or has a conflict of interest (e.g. the identity of the author is known to the reviewer).
2. As a matter of professionalism, reviewers should stick to the three-week review period. Extension of deadline or reviewer replacement may be requested from the editor in case the deadline cannot be met.
3. As a matter of confidentiality, reviewers must not discuss the manuscript with anyone prior to publication.