We fully comply with the Code of Conduct and the Best Practice Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The editors take the responsibility to ensure high-quality scientific publications that meet standards of academic excellence and to enforce a rigorous peer-review together with strict ethical policies and standards in the field of scholarly publication. In case of an ethical issue, all requisite action is taken. COPE’s Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing as a COPE member, among other things. For handling potentially unethical behavior by authors, reviewers, or editors, our journal adheres to COPE’s policies. All editorial staff members have received training in spotting and handling ethical issues. The editorial staff will investigate any ethical concerns brought up by journal readers using the COPE-recommended processes. The Editorial Board can resolve disagreements over the reliability of research reported in articles that have been published.
When appropriate, we will submit disagreements regarding authorship, data ownership, author misbehavior, etc. to external bodies like a university ethics committee. Authors are urged to address any claims that have been made against them with evidence.
We adhere to COPE principles, notably How to Spot Authorship Problems, when handling authorship disputes. Usually, the authorship can be altered via a Correction if all authors agree. If not, we need a credible declaration concerning who is eligible for authorship from the institution(s) of the authors. Ethical issues that might be raised by readers of the journal will be examined by the editorial office following procedures in line with COPE guidelines. COPE guidelines are shown in the link: https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/1999pdf13.pdf
[2] Publisher Responsibilities
Recognizing and appreciating the invaluable efforts of editors and reviewers, the publisher extends its gratitude for their dedicated contributions in enhancing the quality of manuscripts and upholding the integrity of scholarly articles. With a steadfast commitment to ethical publishing practices, the publisher has implemented a comprehensive publication ethics and malpractice statement, closely aligned with the esteemed ethical standards set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
[3] Reviewers Responsibilities
» Peer review plays a crucial role in assisting the editor in making informed editorial decisions.
» Reviewers who have been selected and find themselves inadequately qualified to assess the manuscript or unable to conduct a timely review should decline participation in the review process.
» All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents, and reviewers are obliged to treat them as such. Reviewers must not disclose the review or any information about the paper to unauthorized individuals, nor should they directly contact the authors without prior consent from the editor.
» Involvement of additional individuals in the review process requires prior permission from the journal, as outlined in https://cope.onl/case-reviewer.
» Reviewers must maintain impartiality throughout the review process, regardless of the authors’ nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, or any other personal characteristics, as well as the origins of the manuscript or any commercial considerations.
» Reviewers are prohibited from using unpublished materials obtained from a submitted manuscript in their own research without obtaining express written consent from the author. Additionally, any privileged information or ideas acquired through peer review must be kept confidential and not exploited for personal gain.
» Reviewers have a responsibility to bring potential ethical concerns in the paper to the editor’s attention, including substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and other published works of which the reviewer has knowledge.
» Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited in the manuscript.
» Reviewers should seek guidance from the Editor before agreeing to review a paper when they have potential conflicts of interest.
» Any suggestions made by a reviewer for an author to cite the reviewer’s work should be grounded in genuine scientific merit and not driven by a desire to increase the reviewer’s citation count or enhance the visibility of their own work.
» Whenever possible, reviewers are encouraged to accommodate requests from the journal to review revisions.
[3] Editor Responsibilities
» The editor holds sole responsibility for determining the suitability of submitted articles for publication in the journal. In some cases, the editor may consult with other editors, such as associate editors and members of the editorial board, as well as reviewers, when making these decisions.
» Editorial decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication are based on several factors, including the paper’s alignment with the journal’s scope, its originality, quality, and relevance.
» The editor is committed to ensuring that the peer review process is conducted impartially, without bias, and within a reasonable timeframe. To maintain the integrity of the process, the editor adheres to best practices in selecting peer reviewers, avoiding potential conflicts of interest, and preventing fraudulent reviewer selection.
» Each article undergoes a thorough review by a minimum of two external and independent experts with expertise in the relevant field. Submissions from editors or editorial board members are subject to unbiased peer review, with the editor refraining from involvement in decisions regarding their own work. Any such submission is handled independently.
» Cases of suspected misconduct, disputes over authorship, or concerns about a reviewer’s conduct are addressed following the guidance provided in the COPE flowchart (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts).
» The editor ensures that reviewers’ comments are shared with authors in their entirety, except in cases where offensive or libelous remarks are present.
» The editor evaluates manuscripts based solely on their intellectual content, without consideration of factors such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
» Together with the publisher, the editor establishes a transparent mechanism for authors to appeal editorial decisions.
» Confidentiality is rigorously maintained, with the editor safeguarding all submitted materials and communications with reviewers.
» The editor promptly discloses any potential editorial conflicts of interest to the publisher in writing
[4] Peer-review Process
» All submitted manuscripts are expected to meet standards of academic excellence and are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor and, if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
» No paper will be automatically rejected on the ground of being too applied or too theoretical; technically skilled papers from any field of economics are encouraged. Authors are required to present their scientific findings in a clear manner and inspirit a broad academic debate on the subject explored in the paper.
» For every article that is submitted, at least two review reports are gathered. The academic editor has the option to suggest reviewers during pre-check. In addition, qualified members of the Editorial Board, qualified reviewers from our database, or fresh reviewers found through online searches for similar articles.
» Potential reviewers may be recommended by authors. Our staff checks for any conflicts of interest and disqualifies people who may have them. During the initial submission of their paper, authors have the option to provide the names of potential peer-reviewers they do not want to be considered for the manuscript’s peer-review. As long as they do not obstruct the editorial team’s ability to conduct an unbiased and complete evaluation of the submission, the editorial team will abide by these requirements.
» All reviewers undergo the ensuing checks:
♦ have no financial ties to any of the authors
♦ should not be affiliated with the authors’ institution
♦ should not have co-authored a publication within the last three years with the authors
♦ possess appropriate expertise and a track record of publications in the topic represented by the submitted article (ORCID)
♦ are seasoned academics in the subject matter of the research submitted;
♦ own a recognized and approved academic affiliation.
[5] Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify cases in which relevant published work referred to in the paper has not been cited in the reference section. They should point out whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source. Reviewers will notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
[6] Retractions
» If an article is found to contain serious errors or misconduct, the journal may retract the article.
» Retractions will be accompanied by an explanation of the reason for the retraction.
» The journal will notify the authors and any relevant institutions of the retraction.
» The retracted article will remain available online, but will be clearly marked as retracted.
[7] Citation Policy
» Where the text or image/illustration, table, or any other material is taken from other sources (including the author’s previous published manuscripts) the source should be clearly indicated and cited, and that appropriate permission is obtained.
» Authors must avoid excessive and inappropriate self-citation or prearrangements among author groups to inappropriately cite each other’s work, as this can be considered a form of misconduct called citation manipulation. Please check the COPE guidance on citation manipulation.
» The author(s) of a non-research article (e.g., a Review or Opinion) should ensure the references cited are relevant and provide a fair and balanced overview of the current state of research or scholarly work on the topic. References should not be unfairly biased toward a particular research group, organization, or journal.
[8] Originality, plagiarism and acknowledgement of sources
Authors will submit only entirely original works, and will appropriately cite or quote the work and/or words of others. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work should also be cited.
[9] Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should include a statement disclosing any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that may be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
[10] Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and to cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper in form of an erratum.
