Publication Ethics

 

 

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Sustainable Management Review (SMR)

SMR is committed to the highest ethical standards in scholarly publishing. All editors, authors, and reviewers must follow these standards and the COPE Core Practices. Ethical concerns are handled promptly, confidentially, and transparently. We follow the Committee on Publication Ethics’ guidance and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (see COPE: https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing).

Editors’ Responsibilities

Editors make independent decisions based solely on scholarly merit and fit with the journal’s scope, without regard to authors’ identity or background. Manuscripts under consideration are confidential and information is shared only with those involved in the editorial process. Editors declare any potential conflicts of interest; where a conflict exists or could reasonably be perceived, a different editor manages the submission, selects reviewers, and makes the decision, including cases involving submissions by editors, close collaborators, or authors from the editors’ institutions. Editors uphold strict policies against plagiarism, duplicate submission, and data or image manipulation, and, when needed, will publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, or apologies. Editorial judgments remain independent of commercial considerations.

Authors’ Responsibilities

Submissions must be original, not published elsewhere (with preprints or theses permitted if disclosed) and not under review by another journal. Use of others’ ideas, text, data, figures, or code must be properly cited; self-plagiarism and redundant publication are not allowed. Authors ensure the accuracy and integrity of data and analyses; fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate image manipulation constitutes misconduct. Underlying data and materials should be shared when feasible, or justified restrictions should be clearly stated. Authorship is limited to those who made substantial scholarly contributions; all authors approve the submitted and accepted versions and accept accountability for the work, while non-author contributions are acknowledged. Research involving humans, personal data, or animals must state IRB or ethics approval, informed consent, and compliance with legal and privacy requirements. All financial and non-financial conflicts of interest are disclosed, as are funding sources and their roles. Authors are responsible for clear, accurate writing and for promptly correcting or retracting significant errors when identified. Any use of generative AI or LLM tools is disclosed in the manuscript; such tools cannot be credited as authors and may not fabricate data, analyses, or references.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

SMR uses double-blind peer review, preserving anonymity for authors and reviewers. Reviewers provide objective, evidence-based, and timely evaluations that help editors decide and help authors improve their work. Manuscripts and reviews are kept confidential. Reviewers disclose any conflicts of interest and decline assignments when conflicts exist, expertise is insufficient, or timelines cannot be met. Reviewers remain vigilant for suspected plagiarism, prior publication, data or image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and missing citations to relevant work, and they notify the editors of such concerns.

Handling Allegations of Misconduct, Complaints, and Appeals

The journal addresses allegations involving plagiarism, duplicate submission, authorship disputes, data or image manipulation, unethical research, peer-review manipulation, citation manipulation, and undisclosed conflicts of interest. The process begins with an initial editorial assessment and screening, followed by notification to the corresponding author and a request for explanation and data or materials. If concerns persist, the Editor-in-Chief appoints an independent panel for investigation and, when appropriate, contacts the authors’ institutions or funders. Interim actions may include pausing peer review, placing a publication hold, or issuing an Expression of Concern. Outcomes include proceeding as normal, publishing a correction or erratum, rejecting a submission, or retracting a publication with a transparent notice that states the reasons and responsibility. Reasoned appeals are considered by an uninvolved editor or an external advisor, and a final decision is issued. Sanctions may include time-limited submission bans and notification to institutions or funders.

Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

Corrections or errata address significant errors that do not invalidate findings. Retractions are issued when findings are unreliable due to misconduct or major error or when research is unethical. Retraction notices are linked to the original article, freely accessible, and state the reasons and who is retracting. Expressions of Concern may be published while an investigation remains unresolved.

Data, Materials, and Open Science

SMR encourages depositing data, code, and materials in trusted repositories with persistent identifiers and appropriate licenses. When sharing is restricted for privacy or contractual reasons, authors must state the restriction and, where possible, describe procedures for verification.

Preprints and Self-Archiving

Submission of work previously shared as a non-peer-reviewed preprint is allowed if disclosed at submission. After publication, authors may link the accepted manuscript or the version of record to the preprint and add the article DOI, following SMR’s self-archiving policy.