PEER REVIEW PROCESS
All manuscripts submitted to this journal must follow focus and scope, and author guidelines of this journal. The submitted manuscripts must address scientific merit or novelty appropriate to the focus and scope. The Editor–in–Chief has the right to reject articles that do not meet the theme or the Guidance for Authors requirements. All manuscripts must be free from plagiarism content. All authors are suggested to use plagiarism detection software to do the similarity checking. Editors check the plagiarism detection of articles in this journal by using iThenticate software.
The research article submitted to this journal will be peer–reviewed with double–blind review. Peer Review Statement Quality is ensured by rigorous and integrity, anonymous peer evaluation of each main paper by three independent referees. The reviewers give scientific valuable comments improving the contents of the manuscript.
The final decision of articles acceptance will be made by the Editor, on behalf of the Editorial Board according to the reviewer's comments. Publication of accepted articles including the sequence of published articles will be made by Editor–in–Chief by considering the sequence of accepted date and geographical distribution of authors as well as a thematic issue.
Review Outcomes: Utilizing feedback from the peer review process, the Editor will make a final publication decision. The review process will take approximately 4 to 12 weeks. Decisions categories include,
- Reject: Rejected manuscripts will not be published and authors will not have the opportunity to resubmit a revised version of the manuscript to IRMM.
- Resubmit for Review: The submission needs to be re–worked, but with significant changes, may be accepted. However, It will require a second round of review.
- Accept with Revisions: Manuscripts receiving an accept-pending-revisions decision will be published in IRMM under the condition that minor/major modifications are made. Revisions will be reviewed by an editor to ensure necessary updates are made prior to publication.
- Accept: Accepted manuscripts will be published in the current form with no further modifications required.
After reviewing, all the corresponding information is sent to the author. In one or two weeks, the author finalizes the article and sends the final version of it to the editors’ office. If after this period the article is not returned (or the editorial board is not informed about any delay) – the article is refused.
PUBLICATION ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE
International Review of Management and Marketing (IRMM) is committed to the academic community and the lay world in ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles in publication. Plagiarism is strictly forbidden and papers found to be plagiarized will be removed or not published in the International Review of Management and Marketing. Thus, all received papers are checked with "Ithenticate Plagiarism Detection Software Program" (www.ithenticate.com ) for plagiarism before review process. While signing the publication agreement the author(s) have to warrant that the article and associated materials are original and it does not infringe the copyright of anyone. Also the authors have to warrant that there was a full consensus of all the authors and it was neither submitted nor published previously. In respect of the COPE's Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers (for more information see COPE), the publication ethics of the IRMM includes the most important ethical standards for involved parties including authors, editors and peer reviewers. Any potential or emerging conflicts of interests are to be prevented by IRMM and - in case of deviations therefrom - to be reported directly to the editor.
Editors, authors, and reviewers, within the IRMM, are to be fully committed to good publication practice and accept the responsibility for fulfilling the following duties and responsibilities, as set by the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. As part of the Core Practices, COPE has written guidelines on the http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.
Section A: Publication and authorship
1.All articles submitted are subjected to a rigorous blind peer-review procedure by at least two foreign reviewers who are experts in the field.
2. Relevance, soundness, importance, originality, readability, and language are all aspects considered in the review.
3. Acceptance, acceptance with changes, or rejection are among the plausible determinations.
4. There is no assurance that a revised contribution will be approved if authors are asked to edit and resubmit it. Furthermore, articles that are rejected will not be re-evaluated.
5. The approval of the paper is governed by the applicable legal criteria for libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism at the time.
Section B: Authors’ responsibilities
1.Authors must declare that their submissions are their own unique work that has not been previously published.
2. Authors are required to take part in the peer review process.
3. Each of the authors listed in the publication must have made a meaningful contribution to the study.
4.Te authors must indicate that all of the data in the publication is true and accurate.
5. Authors must disclose any conflicts of interest to the Editors.
6. All sources utilized in the preparation of the work must be identified by the authors.
7. Authors must notify the Editors of any inaccuracies they find in their published manuscript.
Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities
1. All details about articles should be kept secret and treated as privileged information by reviewers.
2. Reviews should be neutral and free of personal insults on the author.
3. Reviewers should explain their opinions clearly and provide evidence to back them up.
4. Reviewers should look for relevant published work that the authors haven't included.
5. Reviewers should alert the Editor in Chief to any significant resemblance or overlap between the article under consideration and any other published paper about which they are personally aware.
6. Reviewers should avoid reviewing submissions in which they have a competing, collaborating, or other relationship or connection with any of the authors, corporations, or institutions associated with the articles.
Section D: Editors’ responsibilities
1.Editors have total control over whether or not an article is accepted or rejected.
2. Editors are in charge of the publication's content and general quality.
3.When trying to promote a publishing, editors should constantly consider the demands of the writers and readers thereby ensuring that the articles are of top quality and that the academic record is accurate.
4. When needed, editors should issue erroneous pages or make revisions and besides this should make judgments entirely on the basis of the articles' significance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the scope of the journal.
5. Editors should have a thorough understanding of the funding sources for a study.
6. Editors should not reject their own judgments or those of prior editors unless there is a compelling cause to do so.
7. Editors should protect reviewers' identities.
8. Editors should make sure that any study they publish follows globally acknowledged ethical criteria.
9. Editors should act if they suspect misbehavior in a manuscript, whether it is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable efforts to resolve the issue.
10. Editors should not reject articles based on suspicions; proof of misbehavior should be provided.
11.Staff, writers, reviewers, and editors should not have any conflicts of interest.
Research and Publication Ethics
All submissions should be produced in strict accordance with the Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Norms for Journal Editors, which recommends adhering to research and publishing ethical guidelines (Committee on Publication Ethics, 2018)
1.Authorship and Contributorship
In the cover letter, authors must clearly state their contribution to the work. Only those who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript because they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the study's conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation; (ii) drafted the manuscript or critically revised it for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission. All persons who make significant contributions to the work reported in the manuscript but do not meet the criteria for authorship (such as technical assistance, writing and editing assistance, general support) should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named has been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that the author list includes all acceptable coauthors (as defined above) and no inappropriate coauthors, and that all coauthors have viewed and approved the final version of the paper before it is submitted for publication.
2. Conflict of Interest
1) An article's corresponding author is supposed to notify the Editor of any potential conflicts of interest which may well impact the authors' interpretation of data. Even if the authors are convinced that their judgements were not influenced in the preparation of the paper, a potential conflict of interest should be stated in the cover letter. Financial assistance or private links to pharmaceutical corporations, political pressure from interest groups, or scholarly issues are examples of such conflicts.
2) The editor will decide whether or not the conflict information should be included in the final manuscript. The editor will consult with the respective author before publishing such material. All sources of financing for a study, in particular, should be acknowledged fully.
3. Redundant Publication
1) "Reporting (publishing or attempting to publish) substantially the same work more than once, without attribution of the original source(s)" is defined as "reporting (publishing or attempting to publish) substantially the same work more than once, without acknowledgment of the original source(s). The following are characteristics of reports that are significantly similar: (a) "At least one of the writers must be shared throughout all reports (if there are no shared authors, plagiarism is more likely than redundant publishing);" "The topic or research populations are frequently the same or comparable," says b. c) "In most cases, the approach is same or almost identical," and d) "the results and their interpretation differ little, if at all."
2) When submitting an article, authors should attach a note advising the editor of any potential overlap with previously published or under consideration material, as well as how the work submitted to IRMM varies significantly from this other material. If all or part of your sample data has been previously published, it should be included in the Materials and Methods section, along with a citation to the relevant source (s).
4. Process for Managing Research and Publication Misconduct
When the IRMM is confronted with reported incidents of research and publication misconduct, such as a redundant (duplicate) publication, plagiarism, fabricated data, changes in authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, an ethical problem discovered with the submitted manuscript, a reviewer who has appropriated an author's idea or data, complaints against editors, and other issues, the resolving process will follow the flowchart provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics. (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts The editorial board will debate the allegations and make a conclusion.
5. Handling Complaints and Appeals
The journal's policy is primarily intended to safeguard the journal's authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher. The procedure for processing complaints and appeals is governed by the Committee on Publication Ethics' rules, which may be found at: https://publicationethics.org/appeals
6. Journal Policies on Data Sharing and Reproducibility
Authors are allowed to disseminate their work after publication, but they must acknowledge that it was initially published in IRMM.
7. Journal's Options For Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections
The correspondence provides access to the post-publication conversation. If any readers have any concerns about any of the stories published, they can write a letter to the editor. Errata, corrigenda, and retraction can be used to remedy any errors or faults detected in the article.
Each author is responsible for providing early retractions or corrections of inaccuracies in published works. Editors are in charge of any author-requested revisions. The document will be amended and re-published on our website, along with the posting of a Correction, after the update request has been accepted.
8. Journal’s Policy on Intellectual Property
To satisfy the conditions of open access publishing and promote the greatest possible distribution, IRMM requires authors to declare their paper open access under one of the Creative Commons Licenses. The website of the Creative Commons describes how these licenses function.
9. Plagiarism and Retraction
Plagiarism is when you portray someone else's work or ideas as your own, with or without their permission, by integrating it into your work without giving them full credit. Plagiarism, in whole or in part, is not tolerated and will be rejected. As a result, before the review process, all received papers are tested for plagiarism using the "Ithenticate Plagiarism Detection Software Program" (www.ithenticate.com).
Text borrowed from another source must be reused between quote marks, with the original source referenced. Previous research must be expressly referenced if the study's design, manuscript structure, or language was influenced by them. The paper may be rejected if plagiarism is discovered during the peer review process. If plagiarism is discovered after the work has been published, we may issue a Correction or withdraw the paper.
We respond to retractions, corrections, and statements of concern in accordance with COPE's Guidelines, which may be found here. https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines
10. Ethical guidelines for the use of human participants in research
The concepts outlined below are meant to be applied to human research.
Human research is research done on or with individuals, their data, or their tissue. It has made a significant contribution to human welfare. As a result, all human interactions, even those involving human research, have ethical implications. 'Ethical behavior,' on the other hand, entails more than merely doing the right thing. It entails operating in a righteous manner, motivated by a deep regard for and compassion for one's fellow specious.
Research should be carried out with a defined scientific goal in mind. There should be a reasonable expectation that the research will: a) improve understanding of the processes underlying the evolution, development, maintenance, alteration, control, or biological significance of behavior; b) determine the replicability and generality of previous research; c) improve understanding of the species under study; or d) provide results that benefit the health or welfare of humans or other animals.
All features of the research or intervention that might reasonably be expected to impact willingness to participate should be disclosed to the participants by the investigator. All additional components of the research or intervention that the participants inquire about should generally be explained by the investigator. Failure to provide complete information prior to getting informed consent necessitates extra precautions to preserve the participants' welfare and dignity.
During the inquiry, investigators have a primary obligation to safeguard participants from bodily and emotional damage.
When author(s) submit a paper involving human subjects, human material, human tissues, or human data, they must state that the investigations were conducted in accordance with the rules of the Declaration of Helsinki, revised in 2013 (https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/). Before conducting the research, a clearance from the local institutional review board or other suitable ethical committee must be acquired, according to point 23 of this statement, to ensure that the study complies with national and international criteria. The project identification code, date of approval, and name of the ethics committee or institutional review board must all be provided in the article's Section 'Institutional Review Board Statement.'
Please click on the following links for further information on the guidelines for using human volunteers in research:
- 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: Code of conduct for journal publishers