Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
The author, the journal editors, the peer reviewers and the publisher agree upon standards of ethical behaviour typical for academic community and especially publishing. The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the Journal of Innovative Business and Management derive from recommendations set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Editors of the Journal of Innovative Business and Management are responsible for their decisions of which articles submitted to the journal, will be accepted for peer-review and are to be published after reviewers' approval. Following their editorial role, they also are responsible for everything published in the journal. They will consider suggestions by the editorial board and from other stakeholders, although in the perspective of editorial policy. In this respect, they will also maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies as appropriate.
The editors will evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content regardless of nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, or political orientation of the author(s). The editors will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone, other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers (under conditions presented in the next item). When appropriate, the fact may be disclosed to the editorial board members in position to clear the reason for such consideration.
The editors and editorial staff do not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. Here the principles required for blind peer-review are strictly followed.
Disclosure, conflicts of interest, and other issues
The editors follow the COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in the Journal of Innovative Business and Management. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript will not be used in the editors' own publication unless agreed upon with the author. Information or ideas obtained through peer review are kept confidential and are not used for personal advantage.
Editors ensure that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
Editors are responsible for a fair and appropriate peer review process. Editors recuse themselves (i.e. ask a co-editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they could have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and by pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct. An editor should act reasonably responsively when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may assist the author in improving the manuscript.
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorised by the editor.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editors’ attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.
Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship of a manuscript
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
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’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism publishers of the Journal of Innovative Business and Management, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.