Publication Ethics

The GJESBM is a leading peer-reviewed platform and an authoritative source of information. We publish original research papers, review articles, and case studies focused on economics and related topics that have neither been published elsewhere in any language nor are under review for publication anywhere. The following statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in publishing an article in this journal, including the author, editor, reviewer, and publisher.

Duties of the authors

Reporting Standards: Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed and discuss its significance objectively. Researchers should honestly present their results without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are unacceptable and constitute unethical behavior. The manuscripts should follow the journal’s submission guidelines.

Originality and Plagiarism: The authors must ensure that the original work has been written. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Other researchers and the author should acknowledge and reference relevant previous work and publications. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with appropriate citations.

Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publications: The same manuscript should not be concurrently submitted to more than one journal. The author is also expected not to publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing the same research in more than one journal. Concurrent submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals constitutes unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior. Multiple publications from a single research project should be clearly identified, and the primary publication should be referenced.

Acknowledgment of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all data sources used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of others’ work must always be given.

Authorship of the Paper: Research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have significantly contributed to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors, others who have made a significant contribution must be listed as co-authors, while those who made less substantial or purely technical contributions to the research or the publication are listed in an acknowledgment section. The authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and that their names are included as co-authors.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should disclose any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental Errors in the Published Works: If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Duties of the Editor

Publication Decisions: The Editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript based on the editorial board’s review report. Validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the editorial board policies of the Journal and constrained by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers when making this decision. Editors must take responsibility for everything they publish. They should have procedures and policies to ensure the quality of the material they publish and to maintain the integrity of the published record.

Review of Manuscripts: The Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated for originality. The Editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the authors’ information and indicate which parts of the Journal are peer-reviewed. The Editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

Fair Play: The Editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the Journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to the sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. Upholding editorial independence and integrity is an important aspect of making fair and unbiased decisions. Editors are in a powerful position to make decisions on publications, which makes this process as fair and unbiased as possible.

Confidentiality: The Editor must ensure that the information regarding the manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential data protection and patient confidentiality breaches. This includes obtaining proper informed consent for the actual research presented and publication where applicable.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The Editor of the Journal will not disclose unpublished materials in a submitted manuscript without the author’s written consent. Editors should not be involved in decisions regarding papers with a conflict of interest.

Duties of the Reviewers

Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor.

Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that all data sources used in the research have been acknowledged. The reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by a relevant citation. The reviewers should immediately notify the Journal if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about the ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript. However, unless the Journal asks for further information or advice, the reviewers should keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further.

Standards of Objectivity: The submitted manuscript must be reviewed objectively, and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow the instructions of the journals on the specific feedback required unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive and provide feedback to help the authors improve their manuscript. The reviewer should clarify which additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will strengthen or extend the work.

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 manuscripts with conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. In the case of a double-masked review, if they suspect the author's identity (s), notify the Journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.

Promptness: The reviewers should respond within a reasonable time frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are confident; they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time frame, informing the Journal promptly if they require an extension. Suppose a reviewer feels that he/she cannot complete the manuscript review within the stipulated time. In that case, this information must be communicated to the Editor so that the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer.