Publication Ethic Statement

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

The Journal of Research on Business and Management (JRBM) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and academic integrity. The journal's ethical framework is informed by the best-practice recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and internationally recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing. All parties involved in the publication process, including authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher, are expected to uphold honesty, transparency, fairness, accountability, and respect for intellectual property.

JRBM does not tolerate research misconduct, plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, inappropriate manipulation of research findings, or other practices that compromise the credibility of scholarly communication. The following principles establish the ethical responsibilities of authors, editors, and reviewers throughout the manuscript evaluation and publication process.

1. Duties and Responsibilities of Authors

1.1. Accuracy and Integrity of Research Reporting

Authors are responsible for presenting their research findings accurately, objectively, and transparently. Manuscripts must provide sufficient methodological information, relevant evidence, and appropriate references to enable readers to evaluate the validity of the research and, where applicable, reproduce the study. The fabrication or falsification of data, misleading presentation of findings, and deliberate misrepresentation of research procedures are unacceptable.

1.2. Originality and Prevention of Plagiarism

Authors must submit original scholarly work and appropriately acknowledge all ideas, statements, data, and materials derived from other sources. Any direct quotation must be clearly identified and properly cited. Paraphrased material must also be attributed to its original source. Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism and the inappropriate reuse of previously published material without adequate disclosure, constitutes a breach of publication ethics.

1.3. Exclusive Submission and Publication Integrity

A manuscript submitted to JRBM must not be under consideration by another journal at the same time. Authors must avoid duplicate publication, redundant reporting, and the simultaneous submission of substantially similar manuscripts to multiple journals. Where separate publications arise from the same research project or dataset, their relationship must be transparently disclosed, and relevant related publications must be cited. Any proposed form of co-publication requires appropriate disclosure and prior agreement between the relevant editors.

1.4. Citation and Acknowledgment of Sources

Authors must provide appropriate citations for all sources that materially inform their research, including theoretical foundations, methodological approaches, datasets, and previously established findings. All individuals, institutions, and organizations that have contributed relevant resources or assistance should be acknowledged appropriately. Citations must be accurate, relevant, and included for legitimate scholarly reasons rather than to manipulate citation metrics.

1.5. Authorship and Contribution

Authorship must reflect substantial intellectual or scholarly contributions to the research, including its conception, design, data collection or analysis, interpretation, and manuscript development. Individuals who meet the applicable authorship criteria should be included as authors, while contributions that do not justify authorship should be acknowledged where appropriate.

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all listed authors have reviewed and approved the submitted manuscript, agreed to the author order, and consented to its submission to JRBM. Honorary authorship, ghost authorship, and the omission of legitimate contributors are not acceptable.

1.6. Disclosure of Funding and Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose financial support, institutional assistance, and other relevant interests that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the research or its interpretation. Any actual or potential conflict of interest, whether financial, professional, or personal, must be declared transparently. Such disclosure enables editors, reviewers, and readers to assess the research within its appropriate context.

1.7. Research Ethics and Protection of Participants

Research involving human participants, animals, sensitive personal information, or other ethically regulated activities must comply with applicable ethical standards and institutional or legal requirements. Where required, authors must obtain approval from an appropriate research ethics committee and secure informed consent from participants. Confidentiality, privacy, and the rights and welfare of research participants must be protected. Research involving hazardous materials, procedures, or equipment must clearly identify relevant risks and applicable safety precautions.

1.8. Correction of Errors and Retraction

Authors must promptly inform the editor if they identify a significant error, omission, or inaccuracy in a manuscript that has been submitted, accepted, or published. Authors are expected to cooperate with the editorial team in correcting the scholarly record, including through corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions when warranted by the circumstances.

2. Duties and Responsibilities of Editors

2.1. Editorial Decision-Making

Editors are responsible for making publication decisions based on the manuscript's scholarly merit, originality, methodological soundness, relevance to the journal's scope, and contribution to knowledge. Editorial decisions must be informed by the peer-review reports and the journal's publication policies. Neither an author's institutional affiliation, personal characteristics, nor ability to pay publication charges may determine the outcome of an editorial assessment.

Editors retain responsibility for the integrity and quality of the content published in JRBM and must take appropriate action when concerns about the reliability or ethical status of a manuscript arise.

2.2. Initial Assessment and Peer-Review Management

Each submitted manuscript must undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine its suitability for further consideration, including its relevance to the journal's scope, compliance with submission requirements, and originality. Manuscripts proceeding to peer review must be evaluated through a fair and rigorous double-blind review process.

Editors must select reviewers with appropriate subject expertise, assess the relevance and quality of their reports, and ensure that editorial decisions are supported by substantive academic considerations. Review procedures and applicable editorial policies must be communicated clearly to authors.

2.3. Impartiality and Editorial Independence

Editors must evaluate manuscripts without discrimination based on the authors' gender, sex, race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, institutional affiliation, political views, or other irrelevant personal characteristics. Editorial judgments must remain independent of commercial interests, financial considerations, personal relationships, and external pressure.

The payment of an Article Processing Charge (APC), where applicable, must not influence acceptance or rejection decisions. Manuscripts must be accepted only when they satisfy the journal's scholarly and ethical requirements.

2.4. Confidentiality and Information Security

Editors must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, author correspondence, and other non-public information obtained during the editorial process. Such information may only be shared with individuals authorized to participate in the evaluation or publication process.

Editors must also ensure that personal data and confidential research information are handled appropriately and that any required consent for research participation or publication is properly addressed.

2.5. Conflicts of Interest

Editors must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their impartiality. An editor must not make decisions on a manuscript involving personal, professional, institutional, financial, or collaborative relationships that create a significant conflict. In such cases, responsibility for handling the manuscript must be transferred to an appropriately independent editor.

Editors must not use unpublished information, data, or ideas obtained through manuscript handling for their own research or personal benefit without the author's explicit permission.

2.6. Handling Ethical Concerns and Misconduct

Editors must respond appropriately to allegations or indications of plagiarism, data manipulation, authorship disputes, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and other forms of research or publication misconduct. Where necessary, the editorial team may request clarification, supporting documentation, or an investigation by the relevant institution. Corrective measures must be proportionate to the evidence and consistent with applicable publication ethics principles.

3. Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers

3.1. Confidentiality of Manuscripts

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and all related materials as confidential documents. Manuscripts under review must not be shared with unauthorized individuals, reproduced, or used for purposes unrelated to the review process. Discussion of a manuscript with another person is permitted only with the editor's authorization.

3.2. Objective and Constructive Evaluation

Reviewers must assess manuscripts objectively, independently, and professionally. Their evaluations should focus on the research question, theoretical contribution, methodological appropriateness, analytical rigor, interpretation of findings, and relevance to the field. Comments and recommendations should be supported by clear reasoning and, where appropriate, relevant scholarly evidence.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve their work. Personal criticism, discriminatory language, unsupported allegations, and comments unrelated to the manuscript's scholarly quality are inappropriate.

3.3. Assessment of Sources and Originality

Reviewers should identify relevant published research that has not been adequately cited and recommend additional references only when they genuinely strengthen the manuscript. They should notify the editor of substantial similarities between the manuscript and previously published work or other submissions of which they are legitimately aware.

Any suspicion of plagiarism, fabricated data, manipulated findings, or other ethical irregularities must be communicated confidentially to the editor. Reviewers should not conduct independent investigations beyond their reviewing responsibilities unless specifically requested by the editorial team.

3.4. Conflicts of Interest and Confidential Use of Information

Reviewers must decline assignments when personal, financial, institutional, competitive, or collaborative relationships could impair their impartiality. If a potential conflict becomes apparent after accepting an invitation, the reviewer must inform the editor promptly.

Reviewers must not exploit confidential information, unpublished results, or original ideas obtained through peer review for their own research, professional advantage, or personal benefit. Under the double-blind review system, any suspected identification of an author that could create a conflict of interest should be reported to the editor.

3.5. Timeliness and Professional Commitment

Reviewers should accept review invitations only when they possess the necessary expertise and can complete the assessment within the agreed period. Review reports must be submitted promptly and in accordance with the journal's instructions. If a reviewer anticipates a delay or is unable to complete the assignment, the editor must be informed as early as possible so that alternative arrangements can be made.

4. Commitment to Ethical Scholarly Publishing

JRBM is committed to preserving the credibility, transparency, and reliability of the scholarly record. All participants in the publication process share responsibility for preventing unethical practices and addressing concerns in a fair and timely manner.

When credible evidence of publication misconduct emerges, the journal may undertake an appropriate assessment, request explanations or supporting evidence, consult relevant experts or institutions, and implement corrective actions where justified. Such actions may include manuscript rejection, publication of a correction, an expression of concern, or retraction of a published article, depending on the nature and seriousness of the case.

Through these principles, JRBM seeks to foster a responsible research environment, protect the rights of authors and research participants, and ensure that published scholarship meets recognized standards of academic integrity and publication ethics.