Publishing ethics:

• 1- The duties of the editors

• 2- The duties of the arbitrators

• 3- The duties of the author

• 4- The duties of the publisher

• 5- Editors and magazine staff as authors

 

1.Editors' duties:

1.1 Editorial independence and integrity

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively based on academic merit (study relevance, originality, validity of study, and clarity) and their relevance to the journal's respective publishing areas, regardless of the authors' gender, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political orientation, or institutional affiliation. Editing and publishing decisions are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside the magazine itself. The editor-in-chief also has full control over the editorial content of the magazine and the timing of publishing the content on the journal.

1.2.Confidentiality

The editors and editorial staff are committed to the complete confidentiality of information about the manuscript submitted to the author and shall not be disclosed to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisors, and the publisher, as appropriate.

1.3 Conflict of Interest Editor

Every participant in the peer review and publication process - including the authors, editors, members of the editorial board, and reviewers assigned to the Journal of Economic Growth and Entrepreneurship, must take into account their conflicts of interest when participating in the article review and publication process, all relationships that could be viewed as potential conflicts of interest.

Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts must withdraw from editorial decisions if they have conflicts of interest or relationships that pose potential conflicts in the relation of the articles under study. One of the challenges for editors is being aware of the potential for conflicts of interest and take appropriate action when there may be biases.

A conflict of interest exists when professional judgment about a primary interest (such as patient welfare or research accreditation) is affected by a secondary interest (such as financial gain). Perceptions of conflicts of interest are just as important as actual conflicts of interest.

Financial relationships (such as recruitment, advisory, stock ownership, fees, patents, and expert testimony paid) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the journal, editors' credibility, and research itself. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships or academic rivalries and differences in intellectual beliefs. Below we outline certain types of conflicts of interest and policies.

1.3.1. Types of Conflicts of Interest

1.3.1.1 Personal conflicts

Editors should avoid making decisions about manuscripts submitted by their institution, or by collaborating researchers, co-authors, or competitors. To avoid the possibility of bias, editors should recuse themselves if they have published, collaborated, or have been in an indicative relationship with any author or contributor to the manuscript within the past three years.

1.3.1.2. Financial conflicts

The most obvious type of financial conflict of interest occurs when an editor or affiliated organization takes advantage of a decision to publish or reject a manuscript. Financial disputes may include salary and grants from a company with an interest in the results, fees, shares, or property rights of a company whose product is discussed in the article, and intellectual property rights (patents, royalties, copyright).

 

1.3.1.3 Non-financial conflicts

Other non-financial conflicts of interest must also be avoided or disclosed. Editorial decisions must be based on an honest and objective examination of the facts, free of personal or professional bias. All Editors ’decisions must be based solely on the scientific merit of the paper, the originality of the research, the quality of the writing as well as the relevance to the journal’s scope and objectives, regardless of race, ethnic origin, religion, or nationality of the authors. Therefore, editors must disclose personal biases that may affect Their editorial decisions.

 

Note:

Even if prospective reviewers feel confident that the presence of one or more of these potential conflicts of interest will not affect their integrity and objectivity, they must protect the credibility of the review process by avoiding even the emergence of a conflict of interest and rejecting a manuscript review.

The reviewer should not take advantage of any scientific, financial, or personal advantage or any other advantage of the materials available through the privileged communication of peer review, and every effort must be made to avoid even the emergence of benefit from the information obtained through the review process.

1.3.2 Identified Conflict of Interest Policies:

1.3.2.1 Submission by Editor

The paper submitted by an editor will be dealt with by one of the other editors who has no conflict with the review and who is not in the same organization as the submitting editor. The other editor will select the reviewers and make all decisions on the paper. In such circumstances, complete anonymity of the process must be ensured so that the anonymity of the peer reviewers is kept confidential. Therefore, the editor who submitted the paper would not have access to the review records of his manuscripts.

1.3.2 .2 Submission from the same institution

The author's paper will be dealt with at the same institution by one of the other editors. The other editor will select the reviewers and make all decisions on the paper with credibility. In the case of an article from the same institution as the editor-in-chief, the editor-in-chief of the relevant Journal of Economic Growth and Entrepreneurship will be asked to deal with the manuscript, and after that,

the submission will not be assigned to any editor at the same institution.

 

1.3.2.3 Personal Relationships

The paper submitted will be dealt with by a family member of one of the editors, or by an author whose relationship with one of the editors may lead to the perception of bias, by another editor. The other editor will select the reviewers and make all necessary decisions on the paper. When in doubt, the editors will consult with the journal's editor.

1.3.2.4 Previous revision:

If an editor is assigned to a manuscript for review that he previously decided on for another journal, the editor must state that he needs to step aside because of a previous review's association with that article; No further explanation or details are required.

 

1.4. Publication decisions

Editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication are subject to peer review by at least two reviewers who are experts in the field. The editor-in-chief is responsible for deciding which manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on verification of research, its relevance to researchers, feedback from reviewers, as well as the legal requirements as they are currently in effect regarding defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor in chief can collaborate with the editors or other reviewers to make this decision.

 

1.5.Participation and cooperation in investigations

The editors (jointly with the publisher and/or the community) will take response measures when ethical concerns are raised in connection with the published paper. Every act reported of unethical publishing behavior will be considered, even if it is discovered years after publication. The editors of the Journal of Economic Growth and Enterprise follow COPE Flowcharts when dealing with suspected misconduct cases. If upon investigation, the moral concern is justified, then the correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other remarks will be posted.

2.The duties of Reviewers

2.1 Contribute to editorial decisions

Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions, and through editorial communications with authors, it may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal academic communication as it pursues the scholarly goal. The Journal of Economic Growth and Enterprises supports the view that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to do their fair share of review.

 

2.2 Promptness

Any reviewer who has been invited and feels ineligible to review the research reported in a manuscript, or knows that its immediate review will be impossible, should promptly notify the editor and apologize for the review invitation so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

2.3. Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and should be treated as such; You should not show it or discuss it with others unless the editor-in-chief allows it (in case of exceptional and specific circumstances). This also applies to invited reviewers who have declined a review invitation.

2.4 Objectivity criteria

Reviews must be conducted objectively and credibly and note clearly articulated with supporting arguments so that the authors can use them to improve the manuscript. The authors' personal criticism is also inappropriate.

2.5. Acknowledgment of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement that represents an observation, derivation, or argument reported in previous publications must be accompanied by the relevant citation. The reviewer must also notify the editors of any similarity or overlap in content between the manuscript under study and any other manuscript, published or unpublished, of which they have personal knowledge.

 

2.6 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Any invited reviewer who has a conflict of interest resulting from competitive or collaborative relationships or other contacts with any of the authors (i.e. affiliated with the same institution) or institutions associated with the manuscript must immediately notify the editor-in-chief and reject the review invitation until the alternate reviewers are contacted.

Editors-in-chief, editors, and reviewers should try to identify all confirmed or potential conflicts of interest and take necessary solution.

• Editors and reviewers should refrain from addressing peer review of any manuscript that has a conflict of interest. This may include manuscripts from colleagues at their home institutions, close collaborators, and current and new students.
•  Editors and reviewers should avoid processing manuscripts in which they have a financial interest that could affect their recommendations and observations.
• Editors and reviewers should avoid treating manuscripts if they have a previous connection to the research, such as guiding the authors in researching or reading a draft of the manuscript.
• If the editors or reviewers have a strong theoretical or personal bias regarding the subject matter of the manuscript or its author, such as that it conflicts with their objective evaluation of the manuscript, they must withdraw from the editorial review process.
• Even if potential reviewers feel confident that the existence of one or more of these potential conflicts of interest will not interfere with their objectivity, they must protect the credibility of the review process by avoiding even the emergence of a conflict of interest and refusing to review the manuscript.
• If the editors or reviewers are aware of prior work that is directly relevant to the work being reported, they may recommend that the author consider including this material in the manuscript. It should be noted that editors-in-chief, editors, and reviewers should not exploit their positions in a way that serves their own interests, for example, editors-in-chief, editors, and reviewers of the author may suggest that citing their own work may be appropriate in his manuscript, but it is not necessary to insist on including these citations or coercing them because it contradicts work ethics.

2.7. honest play

Unpublished material disclosed in the submitted manuscript must not be used in private references search without the express written consent of the authors. The information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the personal benefit of the reviewer. This also applies to invited reviewers who have declined a review invitation.

3.Authors' duties

3.1 reporting standards

Authors of original research must provide an accurate description of the work performed and results, followed by a substantive discussion of the relevance of the research. The manuscript must contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to infer it. Review articles must be accurate, objective and comprehensive, with the editorial opinion defined as such. Fraudulent or intentionally inaccurate statements constitute unethical and unacceptable behavior that must be rejected.

3.2 Data Access and Retention

Authors may be required to provide the primary data of their study with the manuscript for editorial review and they should be prepared to make the data available to researchers and readers if possible. In any event, authors must ensure that other competent professionals have access to such data for at least 10 years after publication (preferably via an institutional data warehouse or other data center), provided that participants' confidentiality is protected and the legal rights related to the data. Ownership does not prevent its disclosure.

3.3. Authenticity and plagiarism

Authors must ensure that they have written and presented original works, and if they use the works and/or ideas of others, they are cited as determined by the ethics of scientific research. Publications that have influenced in determining the research topic mentioned in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism can take many forms, from sending someone else's paper as the author's paper, copying or paraphrasing large parts of another paper without citing it, and claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism of all kinds constitutes unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior that is rejected.

3.4 Multiple submission/posting, duplicate, redundant or concurrent

Papers dealing with the same content should not be published in more than one journal or publication. Hence, the authors should not submit a manuscript that has already been published in another journal for consideration. Submitting a manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal is considered unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior.

3.5. Author of the manuscript

3.5.1 Why is authorship important?

Authorship confers credit and has important academic, social, and financial implications. Authorship also implies responsibility and accountability for the content of the published research. The following recommendations aim to ensure that contributors who have made substantial intellectual contributions to a paper are given credit as authors, but also that contributors who are credited as authors understand their role in taking responsibility and accountability for what is published.

Since authorship does not convey contributions that qualify an individual to be an author, some journals now request and publish information about each person's contributions that are named as having participated in a submitted study, at least for the original research.

 

Editors are strongly encouraged to develop and implement a contribution policy. Such policies remove much of the ambiguity but leave unresolved the question of the quantity and quality of an individual's contribution to authorship. The Journal of Economic Growth and Entrepreneurship has adopted authoring criteria that can be used by all journals, including those that distinguish authors from other contributors.

3.5.2. Who is the author?

The Journal of Economic Growth and Enterepreship  recommends that authorship be based on the following four criteria:

Significant contributions to work conceptualization and design. Obtaining, analyzing, or interpreting business data;

Drafting or reviewing the work critically.

• Final approval of the copy to be published.
• Agreeing to be responsible for all aspects of

the research to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of it are investigated and resolved appropriately.

The author must have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of co-authors, and in addition to being responsible for the portions of the work that he has undertaken, he must be able to identify co-authors responsible for certain other parts of the work.

All authors must meet the four criteria for authorship mentioned previously, and those who do not meet the four criteria must be recognized. These authorship criteria aim to preserve the status of authorship for those who deserve recognition and can take responsibility for the work. It should be noted that the criteria are not intended to be used as a means to deprive colleagues of authorship, who do not meet all the criteria for authorship by denying them the opportunity to meet Criterion No. 2 or 3. Therefore, all individuals who meet the first criterion must have the opportunity to participate in the review of the manuscript and make the final decision About it.

The Individuals conducting the work are responsible for determining who meets these criteria and it is best to do so when planning the work, making appropriate adjustments as necessary. We encourage collaboration and co-authorship with colleagues in the locations where the research is being conducted. It is also the collective responsibility of the authors, and not the journal to which the article is submitted, to determine that all persons mentioned as authors meet the four criteria; It is not the role of magazine editors to determine who is qualified or ineligible. If an agreement cannot be reached about the qualification for the author, the investigation should be requested from the institution in which the work was carried out and not the journal editor. So.

 Authors are expected to consider carefully the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscripts and to present a final list of authors at the time of original submission. Any addition, deletion, or reordering of authors' names in the list of authors must be done only before the manuscript is accepted and only if the editor of the journal agrees with it. To request such a change, the Editor must receive from the corresponding author: justification for the change in the list of authors and a written confirmation (email, letter) from all authors that they agree to the addition, removal, or rearrangement. If authors are added or removed, this includes confirmation from the author that was added or removed.

Only in exceptional circumstances will the editor consider adding, deleting, or rearranging authors after acceptance of the manuscript. During this period, the publication of the manuscript will be suspended. If the manuscript has already been published in an online edition, then any requests approved by the editor will be made with an incorrect error.

 

The corresponding author is the person with primary responsibility for communicating with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publishing process. The corresponding author usually ensures that all administrative requirements for the journal, such as submission of authorship details, approval of the ethics committee, documentation of clinical trial registration, disclosure of relationships and activities, are properly completed and reported, and that these duties can also be delegated to co-authors. The corresponding author must be available throughout the application and peer review process to respond to editorial inquiries on time and must be available after publication to respond to work criticisms and collaborate with any requests from the journal for additional data or information if there are questions about the paper after publication. Although the corresponding author bears primary responsibility for correspondence with the journal, the Journal of Economic Growth and Enterprises recommends that editors send copies of all correspondence to all co-authors.

When a large group of authors conducts work, the group should ideally decide who will be the author before work commences and confirm the author before submitting the manuscript for publication. All members of the group named as authors must meet all four criteria for authorship, including approval of the final manuscript, must be able to assume public responsibility for the work presented, and must have full confidence in the accuracy and integrity of others' work. Individual authors are also expected to complete disclosure forms.

Some large groups with multiple authors specify authorship with a group name, with or without the names of individuals. When submitting a manuscript authored by a group, the corresponding author should specify the group name if any, and specify which group members can take responsibility for acting as authors. The sub-line identifies the article directly responsible for the manuscript, and the Journal of Economic Growth and Entrepreneurship lists as authors, regardless of the names that appear on the byline. If the secondary title includes a group name, the journal will list the names of the group members who are authors or collaborators, and are sometimes called contributors other than authors, if there is a note associated with the second line stating that the individual names are elsewhere in the paper and whether these names are authors Or collaborators.

 

3.5.3 Contributors other than authors

Contributors who do not meet the above four criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors but should be recognized. Among the activities that do not qualify the shareholder to the author, obtain financing; General supervision of a research group or general administrative support; Assistance with writing, technical editing, and proofreading. Those whose contributions do not justify authorship individually or collectively can be recognized as a group under a single heading eg “co-investigators”, and their contributions must be specified (for example, as “scientific advisors”, “co-writing or artistic editing of the manuscript”).

Since the acknowledgment may indicate acknowledged individuals ’endorsement of the study’s data and conclusions, editors are advised to request that the corresponding author obtain written permission for recognition from all recognized individuals.

 

6. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

As part of the manuscript submission process, authors are required to disclose any real or potential conflicts of interest that could be considered to have an impact on the research (potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed, financial such as fees, educational grants, or other forms of funding, participation in speakers' offices, membership). , Employment, stock ownership, paid expert certification or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial arrangements such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, beliefs, or materials discussed in the manuscript) All sources of financial support for the business must be disclosed, including No. The scholarship or any other reference number if applicable.

Sources of external research support, including funding, equipment, and supplies, should be named during the application process (questions about them will be submitted to the authors as part of the essay submission process). Besides, the authors must disclose any financial or another non-professional benefit that may result from the publication of the manuscript that reviewers or readers may consider having influenced the behavior or the reporting of the work.

If the author is unsure of what would be considered a conflict of interest, the potential conflict should be reported when instructed to do so during the submission. Information about conflicts of interest may be provided to the reviewers at the discretion of the editor. The role of the supporting organization, if any, should also be detailed in data collection, analysis, and interpretation, and in the right to consent or not to the publication of the final manuscript during the application process. If a support agency claims the right to approve or not approve of publication, the author must complete this process by the time the manuscript is submitted.

If the editor believes that the author has a real or potential conflict of interest, that conflict must be acknowledged by a disclosure statement on the first page of the article. The authors will also be informed of this decision before its acceptance.

 

3.7. Acknowledgment of sources

Authors must ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and they must also cite publications that have had an impact in determining the nature of the reported work. The information obtained in private (correspondence or discussion with the parties involved) must not be used or reported without clear written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained while providing confidential services, such as manuscript reviews or grant applications unless they obtain explicit written permission from the author for work related to these services.

3.8.Peer review

Authors are required to fully participate in the peer review process and collaborate by responding promptly to editors' requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethical approval and copyright permissions. If the first decision is made on "necessary revisions", authors must respond to reviewers' comments systematically and promptly, reviewing and resending their manuscripts to the journal by the specified deadline.

 

3.9 material errors in published work

When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work, it is their duty to notify the editors of the journal immediately and cooperate with them either to correct or withdraw the paper. Or withdraw the paper immediately or provide evidence to the journal editors that the paper is correct.

4- The duties of the publisher:

4.1 Dealing with unethical publishing  behavior

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publisher, in close cooperation with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and amend the article in question. This includes the immediate posting of an error or clarification and, if necessary, to undo the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent publication of papers in the event of research misconduct, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct.

4.2 Access to journal content

The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our own digital archive.

5- Editors and journal  staff as authors:

Members of the Board of Editors should not participate in editorial decisions related to their scholarly work. Manuscripts from editors or employees of the journal should have procedures in place to ensure fair peer review in these cases. The Journal of Economic Growth and Entrepreneurship has adopted policies to deal with articles submitted by editors, editorial board members, and employees:

• The editors and magazine staff must be made aware that they will be treated like any other writer. They will not be given special benefits.
• Editors and members of the editorial team are exempt from publishing decisions when they are authors or contributing to a manuscript.
• Editors, in general, should not communicate directly with the authors, and this is especially important if one of the members of the editorial board is among the authors. Thus they will not be given special treatment.
• The review process should be as transparent and diligent as possible.
• Make every effort to reduce bias in the review process by having another co-editor handle the peer review procedure independently of the editor, and the process is transparent.
• The editor sends the manuscript for review without having any names on it.

 As an additional precaution, the editor may wish to post an accompanying commentary explaining the transparency of the review process.