Ethical Oversight Policy

Economicus JBEI is committed to comply with and uphold ethical standards throughout all stages of the publication process. Our code of ethics is based on the standards and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Duties and responsibilities of the Editor, Editorial Board, and Editorial Committee:

• Ensure confidentiality of authors' data during the evaluation process.
• Ensure adherence to the double-blind review process.
• Define clear and objective criteria for evaluating and accepting articles.
• Objectively evaluate the content of received articles and their relevance to the journal's objectives and scope, adhering to editorial policies.
• Avoid discriminatory practices based on gender, affiliation, academic degrees, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or any other irrelevant aspect.
• Ensure there are no conflicts of interest regarding articles under review or their authors.
• Use article content exclusively for the purpose for which it was submitted to the journal.
• Establish and ensure compliance with response deadlines for authors.
• Review suspected plagiarism incidents and resolve any conflicts of interest.

Duties and responsibilities of authors:

• Ensure the originality of articles submitted for evaluation, ensuring they have not been published elsewhere nor are under review by other journals.
• Ensure all presented data are truthful and obtained technically correctly.
• Avoid total or partial plagiarism of previously published works, including self-plagiarism.
• Ensure authorship of the article corresponds to those who sign it.
• Disclose any relationships or associations that may constitute a conflict of interest regarding the article submitted for evaluation.
• Clearly indicate the sources of information used.
• Obtain permissions for the use of databases or reproduction of material from other publications when necessary.
• Properly cite the original sources of reproduced material.
• Authors must explicitly declare the use of any AI tool in their manuscript.
• Respect deadlines set by the Editorial Committee for submitting revisions and corrections.
• When applicable, ensure ethical criteria have been followed in research, e.g., informed consent for sensitive data collection or participation in experiments.

Duties and responsibilities of reviewers:

• Review received articles objectively, based solely on quality criteria.
• Clearly state the rationale for their evaluation.
• Provide sufficient and accurate personal and professional information to allow the Editorial Board to appropriately assign article evaluations based on their expertise.
• Only accept article evaluations in areas of their knowledge and experience.
• Adhere to deadlines set by the Editorial Board for submitting their evaluations.
• Refrain from evaluating articles where there may be a conflict of interest that could compromise objectivity (e.g., being a stakeholder in the research presented in the article).
• Maintain confidentiality regarding information and data from evaluated articles.
• Respond to the review request from the journal, even if declining the invitation.
• Do not delegate the evaluation responsibility to a third party without the Editor's consent.
• Remain impartial regarding considerations related to the article's nationality, religious beliefs, political views, and others.
• Do not request modifications or corrections that would require conducting different research from that submitted.
• Notify the Editor of any suspicions of irregularities regarding the research.
• Provide objective and constructive feedback to authors to help improve the article.

We are pleased to be part of the DORA community. The DORA declaration includes initiatives to promote practical and robust approaches to research assessment globally and across all academic disciplines. Through community engagement, resource development, partnerships, advising, and convening, DORA aims to raise awareness about responsible assessment, facilitate the implementation of new practices, catalyze change, and improve equity by advocating for broader representation of researchers in the design of research assessment practices that directly address structural inequalities in academia.