Our publication ethics & malpractice statement is in accordance with the rules set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, 2011).
Editors evaluate each manuscript purely on scientific merits(e.g. quality of the work and data, theoretical contributions, relevance with practical implications), regardless of the authors’ race, gender, citizenship, religion, and paradigmatic influence.
Editors have full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal. They will not disclose any information regarding submitted manuscripts to anyone except the authors, reviewers, and co-editors of those manuscripts.
The editors will ensure that each manuscript gets reviewed by at least three reviewers before publication, who are experts in the corresponding field. However, a paper may be rejected at the editorial desk, after the first review, the second review or the third review. Editors are responsible for the decisions based on reviewers’ comments and suggestions. They are required not to accept papers based on defamation, plagiarism, and fabrication.
The editors will not use unpublished material for their personal use. In case a manuscript is declared as “not suitable for publication” by a reviewer, it will be returned to the authors where they can seek publication in other journals.
Editors are required not to disclose the identity of the reviewers to authors without the consent of the reviewers.
Editors will provide review guidelines to reviewers which may help the latter in reviewing papers.
Peer reviewing of manuscripts is the main step in the publication process. It is essential and obligatory for quality publications. Peer reviews assist editors in making decisions and help authors to improve their work.
Each reviewer, who thinks himself/herself unqualified for the review, is required to notify the editor in time and decline the invitation for the review.
Reviewers should review the manuscript purely on scientific merits (e.g. quality of the work and data, theoretical contributions, relevance with practical implications), regardless of the authors’ race, gender, citizenship, religion, and paradigmatic influence.
All manuscripts received after peer review are confidential documents; they are not to be shown or discussed with anyone except if authorized by the editor-in-chief.
Reviewers are required to present comments and suggestions which should help authors to improve their work. Comments should be objective and void of personal criticisms.
Reviewers who have conflict of interest should disclose them to the editors. The latter will see whether the conflict is significant enough to exclude the reviewer from the peer-review process.
The information and work in a manuscript is the private property of authors. Reviewers are required not to use this information for their personal use without the consent of the authors and editorial board.
Authors should describe results accurately with complete objective discussion. The manuscript should have sufficient details for others to replicate the work. Inaccurate results and statements correspond to unethical behavior.
Authors may be asked to provide raw data for the validation of results and they should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable.
Authors should ensure that the work presented in the manuscript is entirely their own.In case some elements or tools are borrowed, these sources should be cited accurately and properly. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported should also be cited.
Authors should ensure that their work is not plagiarized. Plagiarism corresponds to unethical behavior. Editors have the right to reject the manuscript in case its similarity index is beyond the acceptable range.
Authors should not submit a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Submission of manuscripts to more than one journal corresponds to unethical behavior.
Authorship is only limited to persons who have made significant contributionsto the conception, design, execution, data acquisition and analysis of the study. All other persons who assist the authors in technical help, writing, and other general support but do not meet the criteria for authorship are not considered authors of the manuscript. Rather, these people should be acknowledged in the “Acknowledgements” section.
The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors included meet the above mentioned criteria of authorship and no inappropriate authors are included in the list.
Authors should properly acknowledge the work of others and should not claim others’ work as their own.
Authors are required to cooperate with the editors in case the latter ask for raw data and other important materials.
Authors are required to disclose any conflicts of interest that might affect their results or interpretations.
In case an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, it is the author’s responsibility to notify the editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either rectify the error or to retract the paper.
The publisher’s job is to deal with the handling ofethical and unethical publishing materials. In cases of scientific misconduct, plagiarism, and fraudulent publication, the publisher along with the editorial board will clarify the situation and take corresponding corrective actions such as publication of an erratum or corrigendum or even the retraction.
The publisher and editors will not publish papers alleged for being fraudulent and will not allow misconduct to take place.
The publisher is responsible for the availability of publications and will ensure the preservation/accessibility of the content by partnering with corresponding organizations. The Institute of Management Sciences maintains its own digital archive of the journal.