Publication Ethics

The International Journal of Business Operations and Management Studies is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and containing zero tolerance for scholarly misconduct. The journal's ethical policies are strictly aligned with the core principles and guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Upholding the integrity of the academic record requires a shared commitment from authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher.

1. Duties and Responsibilities of Authors

1.1 Reporting Standards and Data Integrity

Authors of original research must present an accurate account of the work performed, accompanied by an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data must be represented accurately in the manuscript. The fabrication, falsification, or selective reporting of data to manipulate results constitutes a severe breach of scientific integrity and results in immediate manuscript rejection or retraction.

1.2 Plagiarism and Text Recycling

All submissions undergo rigorous automated screening via Crossref Similarity Check (powered by iThenticate).

  • Plagiarism: Verbatim copying, paraphrasing without clear attribution, or appropriating another researcher's intellectual property without credit is strictly prohibited.

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

1.3 Submissions and Redundancy

Manuscripts must be original and must not be submitted concurrently to more than one journal or conference proceeding. Submitting the same research framework to multiple channels simultaneously is considered ethically unacceptable.

1.4 Authorship Criteria and Accountability

Authorship must be strictly limited to individuals who made a substantial intellectual contribution to:

  1. The conception, design, execution, or data acquisition of the study.

  2. Drafting or critically revising the manuscript for important intellectual content.

  3. Final approval of the version to be published.

All individuals who met these criteria must be listed as co-authors. Conversely, individuals who contributed peripherally (such as providing proofreading or general departmental funding) should be acknowledged in the designated Acknowledgements section rather than receiving authorship status. The corresponding author ensures that all co-authors have approved the final version of the document and consented to its submission.

2. Duties and Responsibilities of Editors

2.1 Objectivity, Impartiality, and Editorial Independence

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on their academic merit—focusing on theoretical depth, methodological validity, and structural clarity. Assessments are conducted without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or institutional affiliation. Editorial decisions are entirely independent of commercial or corporate influence.

2.2 Confidentiality Protocol

Editors and editorial staff are contractually bound to maintain strict confidentiality regarding all submitted materials. No information about a submitted manuscript may be disclosed to anyone other than the corresponding author, designated peer reviewers, and the publisher’s production team.

2.3 Management of Editorial Conflicts of Interest

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

3. Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers

3.1 Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, aiding the Editor-in-Chief in making informed editorial determinations while providing authors with constructive critiques to improve their work.

3.2 Confidentiality and Intellectual Property

Any manuscript received for evaluation must be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers must not harness or disclose unpublished information, data, or arguments contained within a submitted text for personal or professional gain.

3.3 Objectivity and Constructive Feedback

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

4. Conflict of Interest Declarations

A conflict of interest exists when a primary professional judgment may be compromised or influenced by secondary interests, such as financial gain or personal relationships.

For Authors

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."

For Reviewers and Editors

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. Handling Malpractice, Corrections, and Retractions

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

 [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 but leaves the overall conclusions of the paper intact, a formal correction note 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 ethical research practices. 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.