Journal of Commerce is peer-reviewed journal with broad scope. Following statement entails the ethical conduct of all parties of publication i.e. editor, author/s, reviewer/s, and publisher. This statement is in accordance with the rules laid down by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
DUTIES OF EDITORS
- Manuscripts will be evaluated purely on the basis of merit.
- Chief editor/editors are not to disclose authors information to any one including reviewer. Similarly, reviewer/s name will not be disclosed to author/s.
- Any material that is unpublished with JOC will not be used by any of the editor or member without consent of author.
- Editor/s of JOC are vested with core responsibility of finalization of articles that would be published. Chief-Editor are assigned editor will look at the suitability of article for publication in JOC. CE is responsible to follow the policies laid down by editorial board about issues like copyright infringement, plagiarism etc. or any issue that might arise in the due course. CE may also consult with other editors and reviewers.
DUTIES OF AUTHORS
- Authors are bound to work ethically. Form idea to conclusion everything should stem from the mind of author/s. Article should contain all necessary information which might help reader to understand the phenomenon deeply and it should also help them in replication of the topic. Any unethical approach or behavior is not acceptable. Authors are liable for any case of Plagiarism or unfair means claimed against them or against journal.
- Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others this must be appropriately cited or quoted. Such quotations and citations must be listed in the Reference at the end of the article.
- Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with an article submitted for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
- Author/s cannot get one work published in more than one journals. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
- Authors should provide names of all those who supported in work in acknowledgement. It should be written in form of a statement at the end of article. Similarly any financial support should also be given due position in acknowledgement.
- Authorship should be limited to only those who have made a significant contribution in the process of research i.e. from idea generation to execution and results extraction.
- Corresponding author is the person who is responsible for communication with the journal and other researchers. He should ensure that names of all the authors are properly written and article has been approved by co-author/s.
- Author/s should disclose any conflict of interest or opinion between authors.
- If author found a mistake or any other thing that might affect the quality of publication, it is his/her responsibility to notify the editor/s.
DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
- It is responsibility of reviewer to do proper review as his/her comments helps editor/s to make a decision about suitability and value of an article.
- If a reviewer feels that he is not unqualified or unable to review an assigned manuscript he should promptly respond to editor so that article may be assigned to some suitable reviewer.
- It is responsibility of reviewer to treat an article a document of confidential nature. It should not be shown or disclosed to anyone except the assigned editor.
- If author differs with opinion/s of author/s, he should state it with supporting argument, which will help editors make final decision.
- A reviewer should highlight any idea presented in the article that is having overlap with the idea published in any other article.
- Information obtained from review should not be used for personal benefits.
- If reviewer feels that he has conflict of interest with any written script, he/she should decline to review it.