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.

 

SMR is committed to protecting the privacy of its contributors and promises not to disclose personal information to third parties without permission, unless for necessary purposes of the publishing process or required by law.

Complaints and appeals

SMR takes allegations of misconduct (refer to the Misconduct Policy for more details) seriously and will launch an immediate investigation by a group of investigation members. Decisions will be made by the investigation group based on clear evidence, and the authors will be informed. If there is any appeal against the decision, it must be made to the publisher within 14 days of the decision date, or else actions will be taken after 14 days. The decision on the appeal is final.

Authors also could express complaints and concerns about delays, extensions, and unreasonable handling procedures during the editing process and the time it takes. The editor-in-chief will be accountable for initiating an investigation into the issue, and the complainant will receive feedback. Reasonable editing procedures will be enhanced.

Any complaints and appeals against SMR journals and editors can be directed to the publisher at editorialoffice@smrjournal.com, and SMR follows COPE guidelines in handling all complaints and appeals.

Research Involving Human Subjects

Authors who carry out research involving humans must declare that their studies followed the WMA Declaration of Helsinki. They must obtain approval from the concerned research ethics committee before carrying out the research and accept the monitoring by the committee. During the submission stage, authors are required to attach a statement containing the name of the ethics committee, the approval code, etc.

Informed consent to participate in the research must be obtained from all human subjects or their guardians. A statement on the consent to participate should also be included during submission. If there is no need for informed consent, authors must provide the name of the ethics committee and the reason for the absence of the need for informed consent.

Human subjects' right to privacy right is inviolable. Authors should not disclose any identifying information, including but not limited to names, initials, contacts, and medical record numbers, unless the absence of such information may influence the interpretation of the research. In addition, written informed consent for publication from the participants should be obtained. If participants are vulnerable, informed consent should be given by their guardians. Authors must inform the participants if pictures of their bodies (e.g., faces) have to be included in the manuscript and receive consent for publication. In the case of deceased human subjects, their next of kin or legal representative should be asked for consent.

Research Involving Animal Subjects

All studies involving animals should be approved by an ethics committee before the research is conducted. If ethical approval is not required by national laws, exemption from the ethics committee, the name of the ethics committee, and the reason should be provided by the authors during submission.

The following guidelines can be helpful for authors in upholding high ethical standards and avoiding submission rejection

• Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Used in Scientific Procedures
• ARRIVE Guidelines
• Three Rs
• Core Principles for the Care and Use of Animals in Research
• EU Regulations on Animal Research

SMR applies The ARRIVE Essential 10: Compliance Questionnaire for evaluating comparative experiments in living animals. Authors can also use it as a checklist.

Misconduct Policy

Following COPE guidelines, SMR will not accept any misconduct behaviors that may mislead researchers.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is not acceptable. Using the content from one's own previously published articles without proper citation is also considered plagiarism. SMR adopts Crossref Similarity Check (powered by iThenticate) for checking the originality of submissions. Manuscripts with a high similarity index may be rejected.

Fabrication and falsification

Fabrication and falsification of data or images will mislead researchers. SMR strongly opposes such practices and will reject suspicious submissions.

Duplicate submission

Duplicate submission of a manuscript that has been published or submitted to other journals at the same time will not be considered.

Manipulation

Peer review manipulation is expressly forbidden. In particular, peer review manipulation by editors involves ethical issues, and when detected or complained about, editors are dealt with seriously and are subject to dismissal.

Eliminate excessive manipulative citation included in the peer review process by reviewers. Reviewers are encouraged to suggest that authors add references that are necessary and constructive to the research. Reviewers' own articles that do not contribute to the scholarly content of the author's work must not be oversold for the sole purpose of inflating the number of citations to the reviewer's own article.

Authors are prohibited from over-citing their own previously published articles. The journal's editorial board will determine self-citation thresholds, which authors must strictly adhere to in order to eliminate any suspicion of citation manipulation.

Editors will be involved in the journal management process to detect citation manipulations from authors or reviewers.

As behaviors above are illegal academic and very unethical, the Publisher will deal with it seriously. If any misconduct action is verified, authors and their institutions will be informed, and all the journals of the Publisher will not receive any new submission from these authors and their institutions  in three years. If the allegations are disputable, their institutes are responsible to cooperate with the journal in investigating allegations.

If there are any suspicious allegations of the processing of articles especially the peer review process, referring to For Reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief will receive the complaint, and an investigation group will be formed to investigate the entire process, including the reviewers, editors, and staff who are involved. The journal will follow the procedures described in COPE and Publishing Ethics for handling allegations of misconduct.