Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The International Journal of Business Operations and Management Studies is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics, data integrity, and academic rigor. The journal enforces a zero-tolerance policy regarding scholarly misconduct, plagiarism, and fraudulent research practices.

Our ethical guidelines are strictly aligned with the core principles, flowcharts, and best-practice mandates established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Ensuring the integrity of the permanent scholarly record is a collaborative responsibility shared by authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher.

1. Duties and Ethical Mandates for Authors

1.1 Data Integrity and Reporting Standards

Authors of original empirical research must present an accurate account of the work performed, followed by an objective, scholarly discussion of its systemic significance. Underlying data must be represented precisely in the manuscript.

The fabrication, falsification, or selective manipulation of source data, statistical models, or research graphics constitutes a severe breach of professional scientific integrity. Such practices will result in the immediate rejection of the manuscript or its post-publication retraction.

1.2 Plagiarism, Text Recycling, and Redundancy

All submissions are subject to mandatory automated screening via Crossref Similarity Check (powered by iThenticate) during the pre-check phase.

  • Plagiarism: The verbatim copying, localized paraphrasing, or structural appropriation of another researcher's text, ideas, or data sets without explicit, clear attribution is prohibited.

  • Text Recycling (Self-Plagiarism): Authors must not duplicate significant sections of their own previously published work without explicit cross-referencing and substantial theoretical expansion.

  • Redundant Submissions: Manuscripts must be original and must not be submitted concurrently to more than one journal or conference proceeding. Submitting the identical research framework or database to multiple channels simultaneously is a severe violation of international publishing etiquette.

1.3 Authorship Criteria and Systemic Accountability

Authorship must be strictly limited to individuals who have made a substantial, direct intellectual contribution to the paper. The journal recognizes authorship only when an individual meets all the following structural criteria:

  1. Substantial involvement in the conceptualization, research design, execution, or data acquisition of the study.

  2. Drafting the article or critically revising its core analytical and theoretical content.

  3. Reviewing and providing final approval of the precise version to be published.

All individuals meeting these benchmarks must be listed as co-authors. General departmental funding, technical proofreading, or basic administrative oversight do not justify authorship; individuals providing these peripheral services must be cited within the designated Acknowledgements section. The corresponding author bears the responsibility of ensuring that all co-authors have approved the final manuscript draft and formally consented to its submission.

2. Duties and Ethical Mandates for Editors

2.1 Objectivity, Equity, and Editorial Independence

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on their objective academic merit—focusing on theoretical depth, methodological validity, and clarity of exposition.

Assessments are conducted without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or institutional affiliation. Editorial decisions are governed purely by scholarly criteria and operate with complete independence from commercial, institutional, or corporate influence.

2.2 Confidentiality Protocols

The editorial board and administrative staff are contractually bound to maintain strict confidentiality regarding all submitted materials. No information regarding a manuscript under evaluation may be disclosed to anyone other than the corresponding author, assigned peer reviewers, and the publisher’s technical production team.

2.3 Management of Editorial Conflicts of Interest

Editors must formally recuse themselves from managing or determining the final publishing status of any manuscript where a conflict of interest exists. This includes manuscripts authored by recent research collaborators, departmental colleagues at the same institution, or direct competitors. In such instances, the manuscript is reassigned to an independent member of the Editorial Board.

3. Duties and Ethical Mandates for Reviewers

3.1 Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review is the foundational cornerstone of formal scholarly communication, assisting the Editor-in-Chief in making informed editorial determinations while providing authors with structured, constructive critiques to refine their work.

3.2 Confidentiality and Intellectual Property Preservation

Any manuscript received for evaluation must be handled as a strictly confidential document. Reviewers are prohibited from utilizing, sharing, or discussing unpublished data, methodologies, or arguments contained within a submitted text for personal or professional gain.

AI Restrictive Policy Notice

Reviewers must never upload any portion of a submitted manuscript, data file, or graphic into generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools or Large Language Models (LLMs). Processing proprietary manuscript text through third-party AI platforms violates the author's intellectual property rights, breaks confidentiality mandates, and breaches standard data security laws.

3.3 Objectivity and Discourse Standards

Reviews must be executed objectively, avoiding personal criticism or ad hominem remarks directed at the authors. Referees must express their assessments clearly, supporting their editorial recommendations with structured, verifiable academic arguments and appropriate literature citations.

4. Conflict of Interest Declarations

A conflict of interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as research validity) may be compromised or influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal relationships).

Author Obligations

Authors must explicitly declare all financial and non-financial competing interests during the submission phase. This includes funding sources, institutional sponsorships, consultancies, employment ties, or stock ownership relevant to the research domain. If no conflicts exist, the manuscript must include the standard statement:

"The authors declare no competing financial or non-financial interests regarding this research."

Reviewer and Editor Obligations

Reviewers and editors must formally step away from the evaluation process if they possess a conflict of interest stemming from collaborative, competitive, or other close relationships with any of the authors or institutions tied to the manuscript.

5. Procedural Response to Misconduct, Corrections, and Retractions

The journal takes all allegations of scientific malpractice seriously. The Editorial Board, in cooperation with the publisher, will initiate investigations following standard COPE flowcharts when breaches of ethics are detected or reported.

 [Allegation of Misconduct] ──► [Editorial Board Review] ──► [Author/Institution Inquiry]
                                                                     │
  ┌─────────────────────────┴────────────────────────────────────────┘
  ▼
 [Determination of Outcome] ──► Erratum/Corrigendum (For minor, non-fraudulent errors)
                            ──► Formal Retraction (For severe data manipulation/plagiarism)

Corrections (Erratum / Corrigendum)

If an honest, non-fraudulent error is discovered post-publication that compromises specific technical details (such as a typographical error in an equation or a mislabeled axis in a chart) but leaves the overall conclusions of the paper intact, a formal correction notice will be issued. This note is permanently linked electronically to the original Version of Record.

Retractions

A formal retraction will be enacted if a published paper is found to contain pervasive plagiarism, fabricated data, fraudulent figures, or severe violations of institutional research ethics. The retraction notice will detail the exact reasons for the action, maintaining the transparency of the public academic record in full compliance with COPE Retraction Guidelines.