Ethics Statement & Publication Malpractice Statement

International Journal of Organizational Behavior and Policy (IJOBP) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. The Editorial Board is responsible for, among others, preventing publication malpractice. Unethical behavior is unacceptable and the IJOBP does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Authors who submitted articles: affirm that manuscript contents are original. Furthermore, the authors’ submission also implies that the manuscript has not been published previously in any language, either fully or partly, and is not currently submitted for publication elsewhere.

 

Section A: Publication and authorship

All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper.

Review process are blind peer review.

The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language.

The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.

If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.

Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.

The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

No research can be included in more than one publication.

 

Section B: Authors’ responsibilities

Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.

Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.

Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.

Authors must participate in the peer review process.

Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.

All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.

Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.

Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.

Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.

Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.

 

Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities

Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.

Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author

Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.

Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Reviewers should not review 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 papers.

 

Section D: Editors’ responsibilities

Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.

Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.

Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.

Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.

Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.

Editors should have a clear picture of a research’s funding sources.

Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers’ importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication’s scope.

Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.

Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.

Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.

Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.

Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.

 

Sources:

ELSEVIER: Elsevier publishing ethics resource kit

COPE: Responsible research publication: international standards for authors

COPE: Cope’s new code of conduct

COPE: Responsible research publication: International standards for editors

COPE: Cope short guide to ethical editing for new editors

COPE: Cope ethical guidelines for peer reviewers

COPE: The editorial board follows the guidelines for retracting articles issued by COPE

COPE: Code of conduct for journal publishers

COPE: Cope retraction guidelines