Globalization processes continue to develop and we should pay more and more attention to them. We also need to systematize our ideas about globalization and Global Studies to somehow fit the realities. We hope that our Yearbook contributes to the realization of this goal. The present volume is the fifth in the series of yearbooks with the title Globalistics and Globalization Studies[1]. However, why Globalistics, not Global Studies? Elsewhere we explained that the notion of Globalistics first appeared in Russia, this is a translation of the Russian term globalistika; however, we believe it might be useful within the English Global Studies thesaurus. We are sure that the introduction of this term is meaningful, because it expresses the vision of systemic and epistemological unity of global processes, the presence of a relatively autonomous field with its own research subject. Morphologically this term is identical with such well-established designations of academic disciplines as Economics, Linguistics, Physics, and so on (for more details see Grinin, Ilyin, and Korotayev 2012b, 2013b, 2014b). In all the issues we strive to describe the leading process of the present-day world – globalization – in all the aspects and dimensions. Furthermore, we have to note that globalization is not only – and we suppose not primarily – about interconnectedness of economic activities in a narrow sense (trade, value chains of production etc.). More relevant in the long term is the alignment of ‘lifestyle’, in some cases as a matter of directly influencing each other and assimilation; in other cases as matter of setting a principle of orientation that is aligning the various processes into one long line of big historical development, creating a world order. As such it goes far beyond the World System be it one of 500 or 5000 or even 10000 years (see Frank and Gills 1993/1996; Grinin and Korotayev 2009b, 2014b). Instead, this constellation is now not about dependencies but about a new stage of union of opposites and contradictions. Though always present throughout history, the mutual dependency is now emerging for all actors as a somewhat conscious strategic moment which includes the interpenetration of the different life worlds. This means as well that paradoxically the principally retard of the socio-political dimension of the process gains in part and temporarily a dominant position: life and living follows rules for which the economic conditions are still emerging. The periphery itself is increasingly shaped by the characteristics of the centre and, vice versa, the ‘Brazilianisation’ becomes prevalent and visible and moves into the middle of the societies of the centre. [1] For the earlier issues see Grinin, Ilyin, and Korotayev 2012a, 2013a, 2014a.; Grinin, Ilyin, Herrmann, and Korotayev 2015.