Ethical principles for authors

    Plagiarism: All the manuscripts submitted to the journal must be free from any form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism of research. Plagiarism takes many forms, including being inspired by other authors’ articles without mentioning their names, copying original parts of other studies, and exploiting even research results proven by others. Authors are expected to cite others’ articles and ideas once they use them, even if they have not quoted them literally. These principles can be also applied to published and unpublished articles as well as those submitted electronically to authors. Plagiarism in all its forms is a morally unacceptable act. It is worth mentioning, the iThenticate app is exercised to check plagiarism in the manuscripts submitted to this journal.

    Self-Plagiarism: Self-plagiarism is considered as an unethical act in publishing articles. This style of plagiarism occurs in two ways. First, authors double back to a part of their previous writings using similar and close paragraphs and sentences that they have published in the past and repeat them in their subsequent articles without references or even acknowledgments. Second, authors submit several articles for consideration, with minor variations from each other, simultaneously to different journals without any references.

If authors make use of the same authors’ phrases or sentences in their work, it is necessary to indicate them with quotation marks (“Abcdef”) and to cite page numbers accurately. Authors in the direct quotation should not change the structure of the sentences and should exactly cite the same things.

If plagiarism is proven by browsers or editorial boards and in serious cases of plagiarism (such as copying paragraphs from other sources without any citations), the article will be desk rejected from the journal and authors are banned from submitting further manuscripts for a certain period of time. In the case of minor plagiarism (such as a duplicate paragraphs in the research method section), authors are asked to explain them.

    Conflict of Interest: If authors have any interest in the research or have fulfilled it with organizational affiliation and any commercial, political, financial, or academic benefits, it should be removed at the time of submitting the article, since it leads to errors in the review process. However, in the last part of the article, authors are obliged to mention any benefits that the research has received, such as financial/intellectual or any other support, once the article is accepted by reviewers and the chief-in-editor e-mail is received.

    Blind Peer Review: Authors are unaware of reviewers’ names, and the journal provides articles to reviewers anonymously. Authors should not communicate with reviewers apart from the conditions for submitting the article, and they should not also submit the manuscript on their own or directly to reviewers.

    Accuracy: Authors are required to fully describe their entire research process and to provide a final discussion of the importance of their research. In any case, the research results must be entirely reported, whether hypotheses are confirmed or rejected. In each article, statistical hypothesis, theoretical support, research method, operational measurement of variables, and then findings and their interpretations should be totally disclosed.

If authors themselves are aware of significant errors in their research process, they should inform the journal immediately and reviewers should become aware of this issue in the shortest possible time.

Besides, all references in the main body of the article should be cited in bibliography sources perfectly and adapted to the journal standards.

    Author Contributions: All authors named in the manuscript should play a significant role in the research process and share their responsibilities for the results. Only authors in charge of the research results can be named. Otherwise, they can be appreciated at the end of the article as contributors.

    Corresponding Author: The person introduced as the corresponding author should make sure that the e-mail address inserted is correct because all correspondences and processes will be sent to the corresponding author during the reviews and after the publication of the article.

Duties of the corresponding author:

  • Check and mention the e-mail address of authors and ensure their correctness.
  • Check and mention the full postal address of the authors.
  • Check and mention phone and fax numbers.
  • Make sure to load all images used in the article along with their descriptions.
  • Ensure that all tables and footnotes are loaded.
  • Check for correct pronunciation and grammatical rules.
  • Arrange references properly in the standard journal format.
  • Confirm that all references at the end of the manuscript are used in the main body of the article.

    Copyright: Authors should review their articles for copyright and possible flaws. Authors must also obtain permissions from co-authors to review the manuscript before submitting it. Likewise, authors should avoid using words that may cause tensions. They should not correspondingly exploit sexually explicit language that may be interpreted as immoral by a particular group.

 

Ethical principles for reviewers

The review process is a highly sensitive and critical activity that can increase the credibility of the journal and, at the same time, develop the related literature in that field. Reviewers may be selected from researchers and scholars submitting their manuscripts to the journal. The reviewing process is also expected to be fair and based solely on scientific criteria with regard to the following points at any time and for each manuscript.

    Right of Refusal: Reviewers have the right not to accept the review of the manuscripts. When reviewers feel they have insufficient expertise in judging a manuscript, they should refuse it. As well, if there is a conflict of interest, they should do so. Sometimes, reviewers may collaborate in two journals, so they should inform the editor-in-chief if they have received the same article that has been previously judged.

    Blind Peer Review: The Research Hub LLC’s ​ journals have a blind peer review process. Reviewers’ identity is also unknown to authors, so reviewers should refuse checking manuscripts whose authors find out about their identity. Within this process, reviewers have the right to see authors’ profiles but not allowed to talk about their identities and reveal them.

    Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should refuse reviewing manuscripts with a conflict of interest, such as organizational, personal, institutional, financial, and any factors that reflect authors’ relations with companies, organizations, and individuals. If reviewers perceive any conflict of interest, they should immediately inform the editor-in-chief.

    Unbiasedness: Reviewers should not take personal or ethnic biases into account during their review process and simply evaluate all points of the manuscripts based on accurate and fair scientific criteria.

    Confidentiality: Reviewers should note that the review process is confidential and should not be leaked outside. Only the journal editors have the right to consider reviews on the manuscripts. If reviewers observe any unprofessional behavior, they should discuss it with the editor-in-chief before their concerns are leaked out of the journal.

    Accuracy: The Research Hub LLC’s ​ journals expect reviewers to evaluate the manuscripts based on up-to-date and accurate standards and to provide convincing reasons for their comments. Reviewers should thus inform authors of their points in detail and sincerely try to improve the manuscripts. Besides, reviewers should be honest with what the editors think about publishing the manuscripts.

    Timeliness: Reviewers must express their judgments within two weeks. If they cannot deliver reviews at this time, they must coordinate with the journal managing editor to either request more time or to select a new reviewer.

Ethical principles for editors

    Independence: The journal editors must maintain their independence under all circumstances and remain impartial in terms of deciding to reject or accept the manuscripts. Unquestionably, editors make these decisions in consultation with reviewers. However, in the case of the manuscripts that are inconsistent with the journal’s missions or inappropriate ones, editors have the right to reject them without any reviews.

    Unbiasedness: Authors expect editors to review the manuscripts in a confidential, unbiased, and fair manner. The criterion for editors’ judgments is only scientific, and they should refrain from any biases in this way. Knowing authors’ identities should not lead to biases against them, and they should not use discriminatory directions in their correspondences.

    Conflict of Interest: The editor-in-chief cannot publish their own articles in their journals during their career. About the publication of the articles in other journals under the Research Hub LLC, they are submitted completely blind. Editor-in-chief and deputy editors should thus have no conflict of interest, whether individual, organizational, institutional, or financial ones, with authors.

    Blind Peer Review: The Research Hub LLC journals have a blind peer review process. However, guest editors may sometimes write introductory articles for specific issues, which should be stated in the article.

    Confidentiality: Any information about authors’ articles should not be leaked by the editor-in-chief and other staff of the journal. In the blind peer review process, the editor-in-chief must be also careful about the confidentiality of reviewers’ identities and decide the fate of the article immediately if their names are revealed. Besides, the editor-in-chief has access to many raw articles and brilliant ideas and should not use them for personal advantage.

    Review Quality: Normally, the Research Hub LLC journals invite two reviewers to check the manuscript, but depending on the article, that number may increase. Editors also decide on the selection of reviewers, which must not be overshadowed by authors. The selection of reviewers is based on their scientific competence.

    Timeliness: The editor-in-chief should immediately incorporate manuscripts into peer review process after initial approvals and quickly respond to authors’ questions.

    Decision Quality: Reviewers’ comments along with the editor’s decision letter must be sent to authors. Authors also have the right to know about reviewers’ comments on their manuscript. In the event of disputes between authors and reviewers, the editor-in-chief can help resolve them as a mediator.

    Authority: The editor-in-chief of the journal is appointed by the members of the Research Hub LLC Academy. The editor-in-chief must think honestly, independently, and responsibly about boosting the quality of the journal. The editor-in-chief should also select the members of the editorial board and evaluate the rights and responsibilities of these individuals and their performance.

These ethical principles were provided based on the following sources as mentioned below:

Journal of International Business Studies (2015), Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS) Code of Ethics. Accessed 5 September 2015.