Publication Ethics

As a peer-reviewed journal, this statement clarifies ethical conduct to all parties involved in the manuscript publication of JRMB Jurnal Riset Manajemen dan Bisnis, including the author(s), editors (editor-in-chief and associate editors), and peer-reviewers. The journals published by IMPERIUM all adhere to the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) and follow their guidelines in respect of publication ethics and managing problems when they arise.

Duties of authors
Reporting standards- Authors of reports 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 paper. 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. 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 the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

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, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. 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 behavior 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. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

Acknowledgement of sources-Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reposted without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

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 co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Hazards and human or animal subjects- If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

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 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.

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 of editors
Publication decisions- The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). 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 as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.

Fair play-An editor should evaluate manuscripts 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 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, as appropriate.

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. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other members of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts 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 for interest

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions- Peer reviewers help the Editor-in-Chief in taking editorial decisions and, through the editorial office communication with the author, may also aid the author in the manuscript improving.

Promptness - Whomever invited as referee who feels unqualified enough to review the study presented in a manuscript or realizes that its immediate review will be impossible, should inform the the Editor-in-Chief so that other reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality- All manuscripts received for review must be handled as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or talked about with others except as authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.

Standards of Objectivity- Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is improper. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments so that authors can use them for the manuscript improvement. Reviewers can make use of the guidelines as outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers as well as use as reference the Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK) (Elsevier).

Acknowledgement of Sources- Reviewers should point out  relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any observation, derivation, or argument that is declared as previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also inform the Editorial board of any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal awareness.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest- Unpublished information and / or ideas acquired through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers who have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive studies connected to the manuscripts should decline the invitation to review.