Publication Policy and Ethics

• Review mechanism: Peer review involves minimum of two reviewers and editorial review.
• Originality and Plagiarism (Plagiarism checks): All submitted articles are subjected to plagiarism checks in order to maintain ethical standards in its published articles. Authors whose papers fail plagiarism checks will have their papers desk-rejected and will also be barred from submitting articles to the journal for two years.
• Author(s) should take care to submit completely original research to the journal.  If they have used words from the research of others, they should quote them appropriately. References should be made to the publications directly used in the preparation of the article. The articles must not contain: copied or published work executed by other scholars and presented as the author’s own findings; word-for-word copying of fragments of any text (from a single phrase to several sentences) without proper quotation formatting; slightly modified copied material (re-phrased sentences, changes in the word order, etc.) without proper quotation/reference formatting; other people’s thoughts, ideas or texts rendered in the author’s own words without providing proper references to the sources. The author must provide references to his or her own previously published works. If the similarity rate of the article is more than 20%, the article is returned to the author(s) together with a report. The Editorial Board of the journal considers plagiarism in articles and reserves the right to reject any manuscript containing borrowings from previous publications without proper references thereto and can cancel any publication pursuant to a plagiarism complaint.

• Ethics Policy

The editorial board of the Journal of Economics and Allied Research (JEAR) follows the standards of editorial ethics in line with the international ethical rules of scientific publications and every makes effort to prevent them from being violated. The editorial board strictly adheres to all the recommendations of the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE, more details: https://publicationethics.org/resources).

The editorial board of the Journal of Economics and Allied Research (JEAR) confirms that there are no abusive tendencies (bad faith) among all participants in the publishing process: authors, editors, reviewers, and the founders of the journal.

 

Authorship and contributorship

The field of economics and related fields anticipate that Journal of Economics and Allied Research (herein referred to as JEAR afterwards) will uphold the highest standards of reliability and quality, and that JEAR authors will conduct their research and report findings in JEAR Publications in an ethical manner. The community also expects JEAR authors to respect other people's intellectual property rights by giving due acknowledgment to everyone who contributed to the published work and to everyone whose work appears in any future volume that JEAR publishes. Similarly, the public anticipates that JEAR and its volunteers will offer the best possible service during the publication process, including an ethical peer review and submission management procedure free from bias, collusion, plagiarism, deceit, and other types of misconduct that erode trust in JEAR Publications and in science more generally.

To ensure that JEAR’s Policy on Authorship is consistent with best practices and international publishing standards, JEAR has become an active member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is committed to ensuring that JEAR’s Policy on Authorship is generally consistent with COPE’s definition of authorship. Firstly, authors must be the “creator or originator of an idea” and/or work, secondly, authors must make a substantial contribution to the work and finally, authors must be accountable for the work that was done and its presentation in a publication.

We expect that all authors will have reviewed, discussed, and agreed to their individual contributions ahead of this time. Contributions will be published with the final article, and they should accurately reflect contributions to the work.

Scope of Policy

This policy applies to all submitted, accepted, and published articles and abstracts in all JEAR Publications.

Criteria for Authorship

In order to decide whether someone's contribution to a work qualifies as authorship or whether they should be recognized in the acknowledgements section, JEAR has developed more precise criteria. Each author identified on a JEAR submission needs to fulfil each of the following requirements: They are a human being that can be identified. Authorship under pseudonyms and/or pen names is allowed as long as JEAR receives appropriate contact information; anonymous writing is not allowed. They have contributed significantly to the idea, planning, and analysis of the study that is the subject of the work, as well as to the writing and/or editing of the manuscript, to some of the original components of the Work that are mentioned in the manuscript. They accept complete responsibility for all content in the published Works.

Note: All individuals who meet the above criteria should be listed as authors on the Work. The practices of gift authorship, guest authorship, ghost authorship and purchased authorship are clear violations of JEAR Publications Policy and when proven may have severe consequences for those found to have participated in such practices.

In addition, all persons listed as an author on a JEAR submission certify that: They are aware the manuscript has been submitted for publication to JEAR. They agree to be held responsible and accountable for any issues relating to the correctness or integrity of the Work and compliance with all related JEAR Publications Policies with the understanding that, depending on the circumstances, not all authors will necessarily be held equally accountable. That the Work submitted is original, that the listed authors are the creators of the Work, that each author is aware of the submission and that they are listed as an author, and that the paper is an honest representation of the underlying Work.

Artificial Intelligence Authorship

AI tools cannot be listed as an author of a paper as AI tools cannot meet the requirements for authorship and cannot take responsibility for the submitted work. Authors must disclose in the Cover letter, Materials and Methods, and the Acknowledgement for applying any AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Bing) in the writing of a manuscript, production of images or graphical elements of the paper, or in the collection and analysis of data. Disclosure should include - but is not limited to - all prompts used to generate new text, or to convert text or text prompts into tables or illustrations; the full prompt used to generate the research results; the time and date of a query; and the AI tool used and its version. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, even those parts produced by an AI tool, and are thus liable for any breach of publication ethics.

Lead Author

As a practical matter in the case of publications with multiple authors, one author should be designated as the lead author. The lead author assumes overall responsibility for the manuscript, and also often serves as the managerial and corresponding author, as well as providing a significant contribution to the research effort. A lead author is not necessarily the principal investigator or project leader. The lead author is responsible for:

Authorship: Including as co-authors all and only those individuals who meet the authorship criteria set forth in this policy.

Approval: Providing the draft of the manuscript to each individual contributing author for review and consent for authorship. The lead author should obtain from all coauthors their agreement to be designated as such and their approval of the manuscript. A journal may have specific requirements governing author review and consent, which must be followed.

Integrity: The lead author is responsible for the integrity of the work as a whole, and ensuring that reasonable care and effort has been taken to determine that all the data are complete, accurate, and reasonably interpreted.

 Co-authors

All co-authors of a publication are responsible for:

Authorship: By providing consent to authorship to the lead author, co-authors acknowledge that they meet the authorship criteria set forth in section 1 of this policy. A coauthor should have participated sufficiently in the work to take responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.

Approval: By providing consent to authorship to the lead author, co-authors are acknowledging that they have reviewed and approved the manuscript.

Integrity: Each co-author is responsible for the content of all appropriate portions of the manuscript, including the integrity of any applicable research. An individual retains the right to refuse co-authorship of a manuscript if s/he does not satisfy the criteria for authorship.

Acknowledgments

Individuals who may have made some contribution to a publication, but who do not meet the criteria for authorship, such as staff, editorial assistants, or other individuals, can provide a valuable contribution to the writing and editing of publications. Since those contributions do not meet the criteria for authorship under this policy, those individuals should be listed in an acknowledgements section of the work.

Unacceptable Authorship

Guest, gift, and ghost authorship are all inconsistent with the definition of authorship, and are unacceptable and a violation of this policy.

Guest (honorary, courtesy, or prestige) authorship is defined as granting authorship out of appreciation or respect for an individual, or in the belief that expert standing of the guest will increase the likelihood of publication, credibility, or status of the work.

Gift authorship is credit, offered from a sense of obligation, tribute, or dependence, within the context of an anticipated benefit, to an individual who has not contributed to the work.

Ghost authorship is the failure to identify as an author, someone who made substantial contributions to the research or writing of a manuscript that merited authorship, or an unnamed individual who participated in writing the manuscript. Ghost authorship may range from authors for hire with the understanding that they will not be credited, to major contributors not named as an author.

Authorship Order

The order of authors is a collective decision of the authors or study group. This policy does not address questions or disputes regarding the order of authorship on publications. It is not possible for the University to define the order of authorship. In conjunction with the lead author, co-authors should discuss authorship order at the onset of the project and revise their decision as needed. All authors must work together to make these informed judgments.

Dispute Resolution among Authors

Should authors fail to resolve disputes about the order of authors, the chair or head of the involved department(s) should mediate an effort to resolve the dispute. If not successful, such mediation may be addressed by the Dean of the School. In cases that cannot be resolved, the lead author, in consultation with the department chair and/or Dean, will have the final authority to determine the order of authorship.

Research Funding

All authors, in manuscripts submitted for review and publication, must acknowledge/disclose the source(s) of support for the work. Support includes research and educational grants, salary or other support, contracts, gifts, and departmental, institutional and hospital support.

Financial Conflicts of Interest

Authors shall fully disclose, in all manuscripts to journals, grant applications, and at professional meetings, all relevant financial interests that could be viewed as a potential conflict of interest or as required by the University and/or journal. All such financial interests must also be reported internally as required by the University’s conflict of interest policies.

Violations of the Policy

Knowing, intentional, or reckless violations of this policy are considered as research misconduct and as such, will be referred to the appropriate disciplinary committee. Violations of the policy that do not rise to the level of research misconduct may subject the individual to corrective action or other sanctions as deemed appropriate by the Editorial Board. Disagreements regarding the order of authorship do not, in and of themselves, constitute a violation of this policy or research misconduct.

Complaints and Appeals

Editors can decide with great discretion whether or not an article is suitable for their publication. A very general description of the rejection decision is provided for many rejected papers. Unless the author feels that the decision to reject the manuscript was made due to an error in the article review process, these decisions are not subject to formal appeal. In that case, the author may file an appeal by sending the editor a thorough written account of the error they believe occurred.

The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor considers the authors’ argument, the reviewer reports and decides whether

- The decision to reject should stand;

- Another independent opinion is required

- The appeal should be considered.

The decision is sent to the complainant along with, if necessary, an explanation. Appeal decisions are final, and additional submissions are considered before appeals.
If there hasn't been a mistake, the Editor's choice to reject is final.
At times, the Editor may decide that a published article needs to be retracted or that some other corrective action or notification needs to be made to the published article. In these cases, the Editor-in-Chief will consult with JEAR Board of Editors and follow the guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including COPE's retraction guidelines. JEAR reserve the right to take remedial action as they see fit in order to uphold their obligation to maintain an accurate and transparent academic record, as stated in the authoring agreement.
If you would like to request the rejection of a manuscript to be reconsidered, you should, in the first instance, contact the Handling Editor through the instructions on the journal’s website. Priority is given to active submissions under consideration, therefore, decisions on appeals may take longer. Final decisions on appeals will rest with the editorial team.

The procedure below applies to complaints about the failure of processes, such as long delays in handling papers, and complaints about publication ethics, such as author misconduct. To make a complaint about an editorial decision to reject a manuscript, please see the above policy on appeal against a rejection.

Complaints about the failure of processes should, in the first instance, be handled by the Chief Editor/Editor-in-Chief responsible for the journal and/or the Editor who handled the paper.

Complaints regarding procedures, such as review time.

The matter will be looked at by the Chief Editor/Editor-in-Chief, the Handling Editor, and/or a member of the journal staff, as necessary. The relevant feedback will be provided to the complainant. Relevant stakeholders receive feedback in order to enhance protocols and practices.

Complaints concerning publication ethics, such as the behavior of researchers, writers, editors, or reviewers.

The Committee on Publication Ethics’ established guidelines will be adhered to by the Chief Editor, Editor-in-Chief, or Handling Editor. When faced with challenging or complex cases, External Editors-in-Chief or Handling Editors will consult their internal contact for guidance. The handling editor, chief editor, editor-in-chief, or staff of the journal, as relevant, chooses a course of action and responds to the complainant. .

If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint, it will be escalated to the journal's editorial management team for investigation.

 

Conflicts of interest / competing interests

Conflicts of Interest (COI) in publication are to be avoided because they raise questions about the quality, impartiality, and accuracy of published items, even when the parties involved believe they have been fair and impartial. Sometimes, a conflict will lead to an unconscious bias that can influence decisions, even if the parties involved believed they are objective. Thus, a credible COI policy cannot rely solely on individuals to make their own COI self-determinations.

Avoiding a COI means avoiding circumstances that would lead to a reasonable person believing there might be some biased processes or results. The exact definitions of "reasonable" and "biased" are nuanced and context-dependent, and as a result cannot be completely framed, so this policy provides guidance on their interpretation in specific instances related to JEAR Publications. A potential conflict of interest can be identified at any point during the publication process, but when possible, potential conflicts should be determined before acceptance and publication decisions are made. Anyone involved in this process can identify a potential COI and request that COI to be evaluated and managed, including but not limited to:

Content Producers (e.g., authors)

Direct Content Evaluators (e.g., reviewers)

Indirect Content Evaluators (e.g., associate chairs, associate editors)

Other Content Evaluators (e.g., member of a program committee not directly involved in submission evaluation)

Professional colleagues

All content evaluators, direct and indirect, bear primary responsibility for identifying and disclosing potential COIs in reviews.

All content creators bear primary responsibility for providing complete and honest information about COIs in their submissions and as otherwise requested. In particular, content creators should explicitly note any support they have received or are receiving that might be viewed as having an influence on their submitted content.

Possible conflicts should be reported to the individual in charge of the venue involved (e.g., editor or program chair). In the case that the individual in charge is also conflicted, then conflicts can be reported to a predesignated alternate or to the JEAR Editor-in-Chief. A best practice would be for there to be one or more predesignated alternates identified and publicized in advance of any potential need for reporting.

Managing a Conflict of Interest

If a potential conflict of interest in reviewing is identified, the party or parties should note this, and then recuse themselves from any further deliberation or decision-making. If a potential conflict involves one or more of the content creators in the reporting of their work (e.g., source of support, employment), that conflict should be explicitly noted in some way in the content, so that reviewers, editors, and (eventually) readers will see it.

In cases where COIs in reviewing are unavoidable (for example, in specialized communities with small reviewing pools), those conflicts should be fully disclosed to cognizant personnel (e.g., to editors, etc) who are in a position to advise, remediate, or mitigate any conflict. A COI can be managed in this way so long as the conflicted person is not directly responsible for decisions in the peer review process.

Double-anonymous reviewing may help to reduce - but not eliminate - reviewer COIs. Editors of JEAR may consider this as a practice but should also be aware it may raise other problems related to COIs.

In all cases of identified review COIs, it is best practice for the alternate decision-maker to anonymize any conflicted parties (e.g., reviewers, editors) as to who has assumed their roles. If the conflicted party is in a lead decision-making role (e.g., EiC, PC chair), s/he should designate an appropriate colleague (e.g., Associate Editor, co-chair) to appoint another person to the decision-making role. Using this process, the third person remains anonymous from all conflicted parties, when feasible.

In all cases of identified author COIs, reviewers and those in a decision-making role should take extra care in evaluation to ensure that what is reported in the submission has not been unduly influenced by the COI. If a COI is suggested or identified, it should be addressed as follows:

Before or During Evaluation

Senior reviewer (for example Editor-in-Chief) determines if there is a valid review conflict and if so, reassigns any reviewer found to have a COI or who reports a potential COI. If the COI is alleged for an Editor, the decision is delegated to an appropriate alternate, as per the above. Evaluation proceeds as usual.

 If an author COI is identified but not disclosed in the submission, the senior reviewer should verify that the COI exists. If so, the senior reviewer may either require modification of the submission to explicitly note the COI, or may reject the submission for cause; the review process may not continue with a valid, unnoted author COI.

After Evaluation (Rejected, or Accepted before Publication)

Senior Reviewer (for example Editor-in-Chief) determines if the identified COI influenced the reported results or the publication decision and may reopen the evaluation or remove the item from publication. If the COI is alleged for the Editor or PC chair, the decision is delegated to an appropriate alternate.

Published Content

The matter should be reported for investigation. After investigation, a determination that a COI existed for an item that has been published may result in the item being retracted or removed from the JEAR Digital Library and replaced with a posted notation that a violation of COI policy was the reason. In each of these cases, the outcome of the determination will be reported to the parties identifying the potential COI.

Violation

Knowingly and falsely asserting a COI — e.g., to prevent or alter peer reviewing, to discourage appropriate editorial oversight, or to seek disadvantage of another — is a violation of the JEAR Code of Ethics and this policy. Knowingly hiding or falsifying a stated COI is a violation of the JEAR Code of Ethics and this policy. Any violation of this policy should be reported for investigation by the Publications Board Ethics and Plagiarism Committee. A referral to the JEAR Committee on Professional Ethics (COPE) may also be made.

 

More on Publication Policy and Ethics

Ethical Responsibilities of the Author(s)

Authorship Process:

When considering the submission of research articles authors’ are assumed to conduct their research in ethical manner. If proven otherwise during the initial editorial review and/or double-blind reviewers, the manuscript under consideration will not be published. Decisions to accept or reject a manuscript for publication are based solely on the article's importance, originality, clarity, and relevance of the work to the journal's mandate. In research articles, the author(s) of the research should present a clear explanation of the results of the study, followed by an objective discussion of the importance of the study. The article should contain sufficient details and references to allow others to benefit from the research.  Review articles should be clear, objective and comprehensive. Distorting the truth or deliberately using false statements constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable. The manuscripts submitted by the authors are expected to be original. All authors must contribute significantly to the research.  Authors should cite the sources they used in their articles correctly and should prepare their articles in accordance with the "Author's Guide" determined by the journal.

Data Access, Data Storage and Reproducibility:

The author(s) may be asked to submit raw data of their research along with the manuscript.  In case raw data is requested from the author(s) within the framework of the evaluation processes, the author(s) should be ready to present the expected data and information to the editorial and advisory board, the field editor and (if necessary) the reviewer(s) who evaluated the article.  The author(s) must have a document showing that they have the right to use the data used, the necessary permissions for the research/analysis, or the consent of the experimental subjects.

 

Submitting Multiple, Duplicate, Redundant, or Simultaneous Manuscript/Article:

Articles describing essentially the same research should not be published as a primary publication in more than one journal.  Therefore, for consideration the author(s) should not submit a manuscript previously published in another journal. If articles submitted to JEAR have been submitted to other journals before and rejected, information should be given about previous submissions (for example, the name of the journal, and reviewer(s) comments should be reported to JEAR). An article should not be submitted simultaneously for publication to a journal other than JEAR. This is not an acceptable behavior in terms of publication ethics.  The current application must be rejected before an article can be submitted for publication in any journal. Originals or translations of articles published elsewhere are not accepted for publication in JEAR. If the article is produced from a master's thesis, doctoral thesis or a project of which the authors are the coordinator, this should be stated in the text of the article.  Individuals who have worked on the project as researchers or scholarship holders can only publish under their own names with the written permission of the executive.  Though it is possible in some cases to extract more than one article from a single research, in such a case it is essential that each one has a unity in itself and different from the others.

Authorship Criteria in the Article Submitted to the Journal:

In the articles sent to the journal, only the names of people who are qualified as authors should be included, and people who do not make a meaningful contribution to the content should not be specified as authors.  The corresponding author must ensure that all co-authors are included in the list of authors. It is mandatory for each author to declare their contribution to the research and publication. These contributions include preparation process of the manuscript, the collection of data, the writing the manuscript, submission, revision and resubmission process. Apart from the co-authors of the article, if one person or more people provide support on the issues including typing the manuscript on the computer, entering the data into the computer, correcting the spelling errors, etc., this person or people should not be reported as the author. However, they should be thanked in the “Acknowledgements” section of the article. Acknowledgments should be included as a separate section at the end of the article before references.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:

For all studies submitted for publication, if any, situations that may constitute a conflict of interest and relations, it should be explained in a disclosure letter addressed to the editor-in-chief, and this letter should be uploaded to the journal system together with the manuscript.  In this letter, the author(s) should clearly clarify any conflicts of interest that could be considered as affecting the comments and conclusions in the article. If a research was carried out with external support, the people, institutions or organizations that supported the publication should be listed (with their contributions in detail). All sources of financial support received for the study should be disclosed by giving a grant number.

Acceptance of Resources:

While preparing their articles, the author(s) should cite books, academic journals, dissertations, regulatory legislation, government paperworks, congress, symposium papers, reports, publications on academic publication websites, which are accepted as the main sources of a scientific study.

Author(s) Participation in the Peer Review Process:

The author(s) are obliged to participate in the peer-review process and to cooperate fully by responding promptly to the editor-in-chief or field editors' requests for raw data, explanation and proof of ethics approval and documentation of copyright permissions. Author(s) must comply with copyright regulations for Copyrighted materials (including the Web) used. All legal, financial and penal responsibility in this matter belongs to the author(s). In case of "revision required" decision by the reviewer(s), the author(s) should respond to the comments of the reviewer(s) in a timely and orderly manner without skipping any suggestions and criticisms of the reviewer(s). The author(s) are required to upload the text of the article on which they have edited in a different color and the author's reply to reviewer form to the journal system. If they do not review and re-upload their articles to the journal by the given deadline, the article will be rejected.

Fundamental Errors in Published Articles (Retractions and Corrections): 

All authors are responsible for removing or correcting any errors they see before their articles are published. After their article is published, they should immediately notify the editor-in-chief of the journal or field editors when they notice significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper if deemed necessary by the editor. If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains an error, it is the obligation of the author to cooperate with the editor, including providing evidence to the editor where requested. Corresponding authors are obliged to cooperate with the editor-in-chief or field editors of the journal to correct the typo(s) in the article or to retract the article.  All authors are obliged to request the removal or correction of errors they see within five working days after their articles are published.  If the editor-in-chief or field editors learn from a third party that a published article contains a material error or inaccuracy, they ask the author(s) to immediately correct or withdraw the article or fulfill the obligation of the author(s) regarding the accuracy of the article.

Journal’s options for post-publication discussions and corrections.

The Journal of Economics and Allied Research (JEAR) encourages scholarly discussions and welcomes constructive comments or critiques on published articles. Additionally, authors, readers, and the broader academic community are encouraged to engage in post-publication discussions through various platforms, including comments sections, online forums, or academic social media. They also acknowledge the possibility of errors or inaccuracies in published articles and is committed to correcting them promptly. Authors are encouraged to notify the editorial office of any significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work.  Corrections will be also published clearly indicating the changes made and the reasons behind them. In case of minor errors or typographical mistakes, the editorial team may make necessary amendments.

The publication ethics team works in collaboration with journal editors on post-publication cases that involve serious ethics or integrity concerns. They issue post-publication editorial decisions (editorial note, correction, or retraction) based on our assessment of the issues raised, materials and information received in follow-up discussions, and how the case details align with COPE guidance and JEAR’ policies and publication criteria. After a post-publication editorial decision has been communicated to the authors, the decision is held during a brief commenting period in which authors can respond to the decision or notice text. After the commenting period’s end date, which is specified in the decision notification letter, the decision will proceed.

Furthermore, when alternative interpretations of published data are brought to light, journals should allow some form of post-publication commentary or discussion. These discussions may take the form of Letters to the Editor, or Comment/Reply type manuscripts published within the journal itself, or they may be hosted by external sites that moderate post-publication commentary. Journals exert considerable control over letters, commentaries and online comments that criticize prior research (post-publication critique).

Corrections can be published to address errors or omissions that affects key aspects of the publications metadata, if the following criteria have been met per the editorial assessment:

• The errors impact the main contents or understanding of the article.
• The article's overall results and conclusions are upheld.
• There are no concerns about the integrity or reliability of the reported work.

Corrections may also be published to provide an underlying dataset or additional information that the editors deem necessary for the article to meet the journal’s research reporting standards. In most cases, corrections are not incorporated into the article’s contents directly. Instead, the updates are described in a separate notice that is linked to the article’s webpage. In rare cases, the corrected version of an article may be republished, replacing the original online version. When we republish an article, we generally publish an accompanying correction, or notice of republication, that is linked to the article and documents the changes. However, we make exceptions to this practice in selected circumstances.

Journal Policy on Archiving

Journal of Economics and Allied Research (JEAR) ensures the long-term preservation and future availability of its digital journal content by cooperating with the digital archive providers CLOCKSS and Portico. The journals are digitally preserved, and the papers remain available and accessible via CLOCKSS and Portico, even if the content is no longer offered by JEAR. All published papers remain part of the scholarly record through this archival strategy.