JEOD, the Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity (https://euricse.eu/jeod/), is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal committed to ensuring the highest standards of publication ethics. All parties involved in the act of publishing (editors, authors, reviewers and the publisher) have to agree upon standards of ethical behaviour. We state the following principles of publication ethics and publication malpractice statement based on the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), available at http://publicationethics.org/.
We encourage the best standards of publication ethics and take all possible measures against publication malpractices. EURICSE, the European Research Institute on Cooperative and Social Enterprises (https://euricse.eu/), as a publisher, takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities.
Duties and responsibilities of editors
Editors of JEOD abide by the general duties of constantly improving the quality and integrity of the journal, striving to fulfil the needs of authors and readers, encouraging academic debate, and others. The editors accept obligation to apply best will and practice to cope with the following responsibilities.
Editorial board
The editorial board is selected from recognized experts in the field. The editor will provide full names and affiliations of the members as well as updated contact information for the editorial office on the journal webpage.
Publication decisions
The editor should be responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Peer review process
All of a journal’s content should be subjected to peer-review. Research articles submitted to JEOD for possible publication are subjected to a double-blind peer review process. Articles are first reviewed by editors. The editor may reject it out of hand either because it is not dealing with the subject matter of the journal or because it is manifestly of a low quality so that it cannot be considered at all. Articles that are found suitable for review are then sent to two experts in the field of the paper. Referees of a paper are unknown to each other. Referees are asked to classify the paper as publishable immediately, publishable with amendments and improvements (specifying whether revisions should be minor or major), or not publishable. Referees’ evaluations usually include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript. Referees’ comments are then seen by the author.
Editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described process. Editors should not reverse the referees’ decisions on publication unless serious problems are identified.
Editors of JEOD publish guidance to either authors and reviewers on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and will refer or link this codes: (https://euricse.eu/jeod-for-authors/) (https://euricse.eu/for-reviewers/)
Fair play
Editors evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. Editors’ decision to accept or reject a paper for publication is based only on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the aim of the journal.
Digital archiving
The editor will ensure digital preservation of access to the journal content on the JEOD website: https://euricse.eu/ and https://euricse.eu/jeod/.
Confidentiality
Editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher. Editors will ensure that material submitted remains confidential while under review.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by the editors in any commercial activity. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e., should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have any conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication.
Procedures for dealing with unethical behaviour
Unethical behaviour may be identified and brought to the attention of the editors and publisher at any time, by anyone. Whoever informs the editors or publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.
The editors should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, depending on the misconduct seriousness.
Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.
Serious misconduct can lead to: a formal letter to the head of the author’s or reviewer’s department or funding agency; formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer’s department; imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.
Duties and responsibilities of authors
Publication and submission fees
No fees or charges are required from authors for manuscript processing on JEOD. Authors pay neither submission nor publication fees.
Open access policy
The journal is freely available online. All articles published on JEOD are open access. Authors are required to agree with this open access policy, which enables unrestricted access and reuse of all published articles. The articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 copyright license (CC-BY). Users are allowed to copy and redistribute the material in printed or electronic format and build upon the material, without further permission or fees being required, provided that appropriate credit is given.
Reporting standards
Authors of papers should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial “opinion” works should be clearly identified as such.
Data access and retention
Authors may be asked to provide to JEOD confidential access to the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review. If practicable they should be prepared to provide public access to such data, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and plagiarism
Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted or otherwise credited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from “passing off” another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship of the paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible. Readers should be informed about who has funded research and on the role of the funders in the research.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author´s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
Duties and responsibilities of reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
Promptness
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.
Publisher’s confirmation
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editor, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.