Publication ethics

 

General

Publishing ethics is a system of highest ethical professional standards of conduct governing the relationships between authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, and readers in the course of creating, distributing, and using scientific publications. The policy pursued by the BRICS Journal of Economics is based on the guidelines and standards developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The publishing ethics and malpractice policies follow the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (joint statement by COPE, DOAJ, WAME, and OASPA), the NISO Recommended Practices for the Presentation and Identification of E-Journals (PIE-J).

Submission and editorial process

Responsibility of Authors

  • By submitting an article to BRICS Journal of Economics the author(s) confirms that this original work has not been published previously (in the same or similar form) and is not under consideration for publication in other journals. If the work (or its part) has been published previously in the form of a report, preprint, or working paper, the author(s) should declare this. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently is unacceptable.
  • Authors should submit the manuscript written in linguistically and grammatically correct English and formatted in accordance with the Author’s Guidelines.
  • Only persons who have made significant contributions to the work may be considered co-authors of the publication. Wherein the Author who submitted the paper does not take sole decisions and notifies all co-authors about possible corrections in the article.
  • Authors should present their results honestly, without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. Underlying data should be accurately presented in the paper.
  • Authors guarantee that their work does not contain plagiarism in any form and provide respective references or quotations if they use the works or assertions of other authors.
  • Authors must participate in the peer-review process.
  • Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
  • Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
  • Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit permission from the source.
  • Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.
  • Authors should acknowledge all significant funders of the research pertaining to their article and list all relevant competing interests.
  • Other sources of support for publications should also be clearly identified in the manuscript, usually in an acknowledgment.
  • Authors must introduce the corresponding author who should provide a declaration of any conflicts of interest on behalf of all Authors.
  • Authors are required to agree that their paper will be published in open access.

Responsibility of Reviewers

· Reviewing assists the Editor in making adequate decisions regarding publication and can also help the Author(s) improve the quality of the work.

  • Manuscripts are reviewed by two experts in order to reach the first decision as soon as possible. Reviewers do not need to sign their reports but are welcome to do so. They are also asked to declare any conflicts of interest.

· Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

  • Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  • Reviewers are not expected to provide thorough linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript. They should focus on its scientific quality, as well as on the overall style which should be consistent with the best practice of clear and concise academic writing. If Reviewers recognize that a manuscript requires linguistic edition, they should inform both the Author(s) and the Editor in their report.
  • Any appointed Reviewer who realizes that he is not qualified enough for reviewing the manuscript or does not have enough time to complete the job should promptly notify the editor and request to be excluded from reviewing the respective manuscript.
  • Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
  • In cases of strong disagreement between the reviews or between the Authors and Reviewers, the Editors can judge these according to their expertise or seek advice from a member of the journal's Editorial Board.
  • Reviewers are also asked to indicate which articles they consider to be especially interesting or significant. These articles may be given greater prominence and greater external publicity, including press releases, addressed to science journalists and mass media.
  • During the second review round, the Reviewer may be asked by the Subject Editor to evaluate the revised version of the manuscript with regards to Reviewer’s recommendations submitted during the first review round.
  • Reviewers are asked to be polite and constructive in their reports. Reports that may be insulting or uninformative will be rescinded.
  • Reviewers are asked to start their report with a very brief summary of the reviewed paper. This will help the Editors and Authors see whether the Reviewer correctly understood the paper or whether the report is based on misunderstanding.
  • Reviewers are asked to check whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent and answer several questions such as:

a. Is the paper sufficiently novel and does it contribute to a better understanding of the topic under scrutiny?

b. Is the introduction clear and concise?

c. Are materials and methods clearly described and sufficiently explained?

d. Are the results clearly but concisely described?

e. Do they follow a logical sequence?

f. Is previous research adequately incorporated into the paper?

g. Is there any sign that substantial parts of the paper were copies of other works?

  • 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.
  • Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
  • Reviewers should evaluate texts in an unbiased manner. Personal criticism of the author is inadmissible. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly and reasonably with supporting arguments.
  • Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the Authors.
  • Reviewers should also call to the Editors’ attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Responsibility of Editors

  • Editors are solely and independently responsible for publishing decisions, relying on cooperation with the journal’s Editorial Board. They are primarily responsible for the scientific quality of published papers and base their decisions on the papers' importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the publication's scope. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
  • The Subject Editor takes the final decision on the manuscript’s acceptance or rejection regardless of commercial considerations and provides an honest and efficient review process.
  • Subject Editors are expected to focus on the scientific quality of a manuscript, as well as the overall style, which should correspond to the best practices of clear and concise academic writing. Editors are also expected to correct small errors in orthography or style during the editing process.
  • Editors should evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of the Author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, origin, nationality, or political preferences.
  • Editors should always consider the needs of the Authors and the Readers when attempting to improve the publication.
  • Editors guarantee the confidentiality of the peer-review process unless the Reviewer decides to disclose his/her identity.
  • Editors should ensure that all research materials they publish conform to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
  • Editors should avoid any conflicts of interest between Authors, Reviewers, and Board Members.

Conflict of interest

During the submission process, Authors are kindly advised to identify possible conflicts of interest with the journal Editors. After manuscripts are assigned to a handling Editor, individual Editors should inform the managing Editor of any possible conflicts of interest with the Authors. Materials for the journal are also assigned to referees to minimize conflicts of interest. After manuscripts are assigned for review, referees are asked to inform the Editor of any conflicts that may exist.

Appeals and open debate

BRICS Journal of Economics encourages academic debate and constructive criticism, e.g. publication of open opinions, forum papers, corrigenda, critical comments on a published paper, and Author’s response to criticism.

Authors are always invited to respond to any editorial correspondence before publication. Criticism of the work is encouraged. Authors are not allowed to neglect unfavorable comments about their work and choose not to respond to criticisms.

Authors should submit their appeal on editorial decisions to the Editorial Office addressed to the Editor-in-Chief or to the Subject Editor.

Editors will mediate all discussions between Authors and Reviewers during the peer review process prior to publication. If an agreement cannot be reached, the Editors may consider inviting additional Reviewers, if appropriate. The Editor-in-Chief will mediate all discussions between the Authors and the Subject Editors.

Misconduct

Research misconduct may include: (a) manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes; (b) changing or omitting data or results in such a way that the research is not accurately represented in the article; c) plagiarism. Research misconduct does not include honest errors or differences of opinion. If misconduct is suspected, Subject Editors will act in accordance with the relevant COPE guidelines.

Plagiarism and duplicate publication policy


A special case of misconduct is plagiarism, which is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Plagiarism is considered as a theft of intellectual property. Manuscripts submitted to BRICS Journal of Economics which contain substantial unattributed textual copying from other papers will be immediately rejected. Editors are advised to check manuscripts for plagiarism via different services (e.g., Antiplagiat).
Cases when authors use (slightly changed) large parts of their own works published in other journals without providing a clear reference to the original source, are considered as dual-publication or self-plagiarism.

In cases of plagiarism or duplicate publication in the already published paper, an announcement will be made on the journal publication page and a procedure of retraction of the paper will be triggered.

Responses to possible misconduct

All allegations of misconduct must be referred to the Editor-In-Chief. Upon the thorough examination, the Editor-In-Chief and deputy Editors should conclude if the case concerns a possibility of misconduct. All allegations should be kept confidential and written references to the matter should be kept anonymous, whenever possible.

Should a comment on potential misconduct be submitted by the Reviewers or Editors, an explanation will be sought from the Authors. If it is satisfactory and the issue is the result of either a mistake or misunderstanding, the matter can be easily resolved. If not, the manuscript will be rejected or retracted and the Editors may impose a ban on that individual's publication in the journals for a certain period of time. In cases of plagiarism or dual publication, an announcement will be made in both journals explaining the situation.

Retraction policies



Article retraction

When an Author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the Author's obligation to notify the Editor or Publisher and cooperate with them to retract or correct the paper.

When the Editor or the Publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the Author to promptly retract or correct the paper.

According to the COPE Retraction Guidelines followed by BRICS Journal of Economics, an article can also be retracted because of plagiarism (self-plagiarism), dual-publication, or other kinds of unethical behavior of the Author(s).

Retraction procedure

  • Retraction should happen after careful consideration by the Editors of allegations coming from the Editors, Authors, or Readers.
  • The retracted article is removed from the site and a retraction note is issued on its place.
  • In some cases, the retracted article can be replaced with a new corrected version containing an apparent link to the retracted original version and a retraction note with a history of the document.

Correction

Journal Editors should consider issuing a correction if:

  • A small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of an honest error).
  • The Author/contributor’ list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).
  • Other reasons that do not qualify as sound evidence for retraction or expression of concern.