Ethical Standards

Journal of Research in Emerging Markets (JREM) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and to supporting ethical research practices and adheres to the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers. The journal editors follow the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors and to refer reviewers to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers as appropriate. Allegations of misconduct are investigated in accordance with the COPE Best Practice Guidelines as far as is practicable.

This journal has adopted comprehensive publication ethics and publication malpractice statement, composed using the publishing ethics resource kit and in compliance with Elsevier recommendations and COPE guidelines:

Duties of the JREM Editors

  • Fair play. Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
  • Confidentiality. The Editor-in-Chief and any editorial staff do not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
  • Disclosure and conflicts of interest. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript are not used in Editor’s or Reviewers’ own research without the explicit written consent of the author(s).
  • Publication decisions. The Editor-in-Chief of JREM is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should be published. The Editor-in-Chief 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-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Duties of peer reviewers.

  • Contribution to editorial decisions. Peer review assists the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
  • Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript submitted to JREM or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
  • Any manuscripts received by JREM for review are treated as confidential documents. They are not shown or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.
  • Standards of objectivity. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
  • Acknowledgment 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 JREM 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.

Duties of authors

  • Reporting standards. Authors reporting results of original research 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 manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
  • Originality and Plagiarism. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others they are responsible to ensure that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
  • 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 behavior and is unacceptable.
  • Acknowledgment 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 a manuscript. 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 coauthors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript 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 conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
  • 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’s Editor-in-Chief and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

Publisher’s confirmation

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher in close collaboration with the JREM Editor-in-Chief 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.

Scientific Misconduct and Breaches of Publication Ethics

Scientific misconduct includes fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism by the authors.

Breaches of publication ethics include failure to reveal financial conflicts of interest; omitting a deserving author or adding a non-contributing author; misrepresenting publication status in the reference list (erroneously claiming that a paper is "in press"); self-plagiarism without attribution; and duplicate or redundant publication.

Editorial action should be expected in breaches of publication ethics and cases of scientific misconduct. JREM has adopted the principles of, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Any and all authors submitting a manuscript to JREM agree to adhere to the ethical guidelines contained in this website and acknowledge that they are aware of the consequences that may result following breaches of publication ethics. Consequences include notification of the breach in the journal, retraction of published articles, notification of institutional authorities, subsequent institutional investigation, and loss of privileges of publishing in the journal.

Redundant or duplicate publication is a publication of data, tables, figures, or any other content that substantially overlaps with other material published previously or to be published in the future. This includes work published by others or any author of the manuscript submitted to JREM. When submitting a paper, the corresponding author must make a full statement to the Editor-in-Chief in the cover letter about all submissions and previous reports (in any language) that could be regarded as a redundant or duplicate publication of the same or very similar work. The corresponding author is also responsible for alerting the Editor-in-Chief if the work includes subjects about which a previous report has been published or about a manuscript that is under review by, submitted to, in press at, or to be submitted to or published in another journal in the future. Any such work must be referred to and referenced in the new paper and a copy of the material should be included with the submission as a supplemental file. Abstracts presented at scientific meetings (with no press releases and not discussed in detail at a symposium) are not considered pre-published material.

Plagiarism detection

Plagiarism is the use of others’ ideas or words without properly crediting the source. If authors include one or more sentences verbatim from another source, the original source must be cited and the sentence(s) put in quotation marks to avoid plagiarism. Authors must not use materials of others (text, figures, images, tables) without permission and attribution, including their own published work.

Overlap detection technology has been implemented by JREM in the form of Turnitin, a software tool aimed at checking for overlap in submitted manuscripts. Turnitin detects possible plagiarism in the text using an extensive database of published materials. Manuscripts with excessive duplication will be rejected.

Editorial action and complains

Editorial action should be expected in cases of scientific misconduct and breaches of publication ethics. Editorial actions that may be taken include notification of the breach in the journal, retraction of published articles, notification of institutional authorities, and loss of privileges of publishing in JREM.

The authors who may have a complaint against any of the aspects of their interaction with JREM should write an e-mail to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief aim to acknowledge the complaint within 7 days after receiving it. In addition, they should explain to the author the procedure which they will be undertaking to resolve the matt