Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies (JEBS) is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. The journal's aim is to augment the knowledge base in collaboration with scholars, academicians, professionals and practitioners by allowing free access to valuable information around the world. The publication in a refereed academic journal follows standard publication ethics to ensure the validity and integrity of scientific findings. It is therefore of great importance that all parties (the editor, the author, the peer-reviewers and the publishers) involved in the publication process conduct themselves in accordance with the highest possible level of publication ethical standards from submission to publication of an article. To warrant the validity and integrity of scientific findings, the Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies (JEBS) primarily follows the Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Authors Duties

Submission declaration, originality, and authorship

   - In a cover letter addressing the journal editor, the author(s) should declare that work submitted to the journal is original, not under consideration for publication by another journal, and that all listed authors approve its submission to JEBS. All authors should be aware of the importance of submitting work that is based on their own research and expressed in their own words. It is JEBS policy to welcome submissions for consideration, which are original, and not under consideration for publication by another journal at the same time.

   - Unless a legitimate explanation is received for a large amount of text overlapping between the author(s) submitted paper and other work(s), the submitted paper will not be considered for publication.

   - Previously published work of others must be acknowledged. Authors should cite previously published works that have been significant in determining the nature of the submitted work.

   - An attempt to manipulate and increases the number of citations of a particular author's work that also includes a particular journal represents an unethical act and is thus unwelcome.

    - A manuscript that has been previously published or is concurrently under review with another journal will not be considered for publication in JEBS. If a manuscript is qualified for publication after a peer review, it will not be published elsewhere with the same contents.

   - Only those who have been involved and contributed significantly in the form of formation, design, execution, or interpretation of a research paper should be listed as authors. The corresponding author should guarantee that no uninvolved person should appear as an author of the manuscript. Where others, who have been involved in certain significant parts of the research paper should be acknowledged or listed as authors/coauthors.

Contents accuracy and data retention

   - The submission of the manuscript further implies that all authors must attest to the fact that authors listed on the title page have read the manuscript, attest to the validity and legitimacy of the data and its interpretation, and agree to its submission to JEBS for publication.

   - The underlying data used in the research article should be reported accurately with sufficient details and sources to allow others who wish to replicate work of a similar kind. Further, falsified or intentionally imprecise statements represent unethical acts and are thus unwelcome.

   - The editor/ editorial staff/ reviewer reserve the right to ask author(s) to provide the data, which has been used in a submitted manuscript. If feasible, the author should maintain such data given its post-publication usage likelihood.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

   - All authors of the submitted work should include a statement in a cover letter disclosing any kind of conflict(s) of interest. In addition, the listed author(s) should clearly indicate all sources that have supported the submitted work.

Error(s) in research work

   - In case, the author(s) finds out error(s) of significant nature in his/her own published work, it is the author(s) responsibility to inform the editor/editorial staff /publisher immediately and cooperate earnestly with the editor/editorial staff /publisher to retract or correct the paper in form of an erratum.

Editors Duties

Publication Decision

   - The editor is responsible and has complete authority on deciding which of the papers submitted to the journal should be accepted for publication. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Neither the Chief Editor nor the board members have the authority to influence the reviewers who are conducting the review of the articles submitted for peer review.

Fair Play

   - The editor evaluates manuscripts submitted to JEBS based on their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors

Confidentiality

   - The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to JEBS to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

   - The editor/editorial staff should preserve the anonymity of reviewers and must not disclose the details of the reviewers to a third party without the consent of the reviewers.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

   - Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by the editor/editorial staff that has a view of the manuscript in the handling process in his or her own research without written consent from the author(s).

Response to error(s) in research work

   - The editor should respond immediately in case the author(s) contacts the editorial office related to error(s) of significant nature in his/her own published work and thus appropriate measures should be taken that also include written formal retraction or correction of the published manuscript.

Reviewers Duties

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

   - The double-blind review helps the editor and editorial board in making editorial decisions on the submitted work. In addition, it also provides the author with constructive comments for improving the contents of the manuscript.

Confidentiality

   - A manuscript received for review must be handled as a confidential document. The manuscript must not be disclosed to or discussed with others unless authorized by the editor.

Punctuality

   - Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the assigned document or unable to provide a timely review (as stipulated in an invitation email) of the manuscript should inform the editor/editorial staff and excuse himself/herself from reviewing the manuscript. If you feel that reviewing the manuscript will take you longer to complete than stipulated in an invitation email, please contact the editor/editorial staff to discuss the matter

Objectivity standards

   - Reviewers are expected to review the manuscript impartially and personal criticism of the author should be avoided. In addition, reviewers are expected to clearly articulate their views with supporting arguments.

   - If you find a paper unsuitable for publication, please provide an explanation in the report. Reviewers, however, are not expected to guide authors of weak or poorly presented papers.

   - In evaluating the quality of the manuscript, you may wish to consider its: (a) originality, (b) importance, (c) craftsmanship, (d) exposition, (e) adequacy of the introduction in placing the research within the context of the existing literature,(f) Internationality (g) Analytical rigor

   - If you find a paper potentially publishable, make constructive criticism and state clearly the revisions required for publication. Moreover, referees are encouraged to provide authors of potentially promising papers with suggestions for the consolidation of their manuscripts

Acknowledgment of Sources

   - Reviewers are encouraged to identify and suggest relevant published references that have been not cited by the author(s). Reviewers should inform the editor in case they come across significant textual overlap between submitted work and other published works, which are in their knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

   - Reviewers should not review a manuscript in which they have conflicts of interest originating from collaborative, competitive, or other relationships with any of the other authors, institutions or companies associated with the manuscript and thus inform the editor promptly. The information and an idea obtained from the submitted work while reviewing the manuscript must be kept confidential and should not be used for a reviewer's own benefit.