EDITORIAL RESPONSIBILITIES

• Editors work with an international advisory board that guides the shaping of the journal, as well as with the international board of editors for submitted manuscripts.
• Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
• Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
• Editors should base their decisions solely on the papers’ importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the publication’s scope. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members.
• The Editorial Board must confirm receipt of submitted papers and ensure the efficient, fair, and timely review process of submitted papers.
• The Editor must preserve the anonymity of reviewing. Editors must ensure that submitted manuscripts are handled in a confidential manner, with no details being disclosed until a decision has been taken as to whether the manuscript is to be published. The Editor must also ensure the confidentiality of the names and other details of referees. JABSM reviewing is double-blind, in that authors do not know the names of the reviewers of their papers, and reviewers do not know the names of the authors. Authors are required to make reasonable efforts to hide their identities, including not listing their names or affiliations and omitting acknowledgments in their submitted papers. All this information will be included on the cover page and should not appear elsewhere in the paper.   In addition, the Editor is required to deal fairly with an author’s appeal against the rejection of a submitted manuscript. The editor should decide to accept or reject a manuscript for publication with reference only to the manuscript’s importance, originality, and clarity, and its relevance to the journal. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article. The Editor can reject any article at any time before publication, including after acceptance if concerns arise.
• Editors should make known any conflicts of interest that might arise, specifically, in cases where an editor is an author of a submitted manuscript, the manuscript must be passed to another editor for independent peer review.
• Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
• Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
• Editors are responsible to take a decision regarding any academic misconduct or convincing evidence that a published manuscript is erroneous, usually through consultation with the author. This may require the publication of a formal ‘retraction’ or correction.

PEER REVIEW/RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE REVIEWERS

Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to JABSM by experts in related fields. Unbiased, independent and critical approaches to academic assessment are an intrinsic part of all scholarly work. Peer review can therefore be viewed as an important extension of the scientific process. Peer review means bringing judgment based on experience and knowledge to the evaluation process—from setting the standards to conducting the evaluation, to making final decisions. JABSM acknowledges the contribution of its peer reviewers. Each paper will be sent for evaluation by at least two reviewers. if you are interested to join our team of reviewers, please send your C.V. through email.

All Reviewing Judgments Should Be Objective

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author(s) is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments. Reviewers are expected to respond promptly to requests to review and to submit reviews within the time agreed. Reviewers’ comments should be constructive, honest, and polite.

Reviewed Articles Should Be Treated Confidentially

Reviewers should regard a submitted manuscript as a confidential document and not meant to be public, and so should not use, share or disclose unpublished information in a manuscript. Reviewers must not publicly discuss an authors’ work and must not appropriate authors’ ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers must not retain the manuscript for their personal use and should destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting their reviews.

Reviewers Should Have No Conflict of Interest with Respect to Reviewed Articles

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, universities, or institutions connected to the submission. Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript and should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work they’re reviewing before its publication to further their own interests. Reviewers must not retain the manuscript for their personal use and should destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting their reviews.

Reviewers Should Assess the Manuscript in a Timely Manner

Peer reviewers must fulfill their responsibility by rigorously assessing a given research manuscript within the time limits specified by JABSM. If reviewers are unable to review the paper at a specified time, they should inform the editorial board immediately by e-mail to the editor.

Reviewers Should Point Out Relevant Published Work Which is Not Yet Cited

Reviewers should point out relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper.

PUBLICATION DETAILS

Name: Journal of Advanced Business Studies and Management
ISSN: xxxx-xxxx
Period: xxxx
Publication Guidelines:  COPE Guidelines

PUBLISHER DETAILS

SciMatic Inc.
Adnan Menderes Technocity
Office No: 29b, Aydın Adnan Menderes University Main Campus
Efeler-09100, AYDIN, Türkiye