The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
All parties involved in the act of publishing (i.e., the author(s), the Conference Proceedings editor(s), the peer reviewer(s) and the publisher) need to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour and prevention of publication malpractice. The statements for the Proceedings of FEB Zagreb International Odyssey Conference on Economics and Business (further in text: the Conference Proceedings) are based on and fully consistent with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing and the COPE Core Practices.
We take publishing ethics very seriously and encourage the best standards of publication ethics. Furthermore, we take all possible measures against publication malpractices and accept our responsibility to maintain the integrity of the scientific record as much as possible. By submitting a manuscript to the Conference Proceedings, each author explicitly confirms that the manuscript meets these criteria for authors and co-authors.
Duties and responsibilities of EDITOR(S)
In addition to many general duties, such as constantly improving the quality and integrity of the Conference Proceedings, striving to the needs of authors and readers, encouraging academic debate, and others, the editor(s) accept obligation to apply best will and practice to cope with the following responsibilities:
The editor(s) of a peer-reviewed Conference Proceedings have complete responsibility and authority to accept submitted papers for publication or to reject it, and, moreover, are accountable for everything published in the Conference Proceedings. In making these decisions, the editor(s) may be guided by the policies of the Conference Proceedings’ program committee, as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor(s) may confer with other editors or reviewers for an evaluation to use when making publication decisions. The editor(s) should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
The editor(s) should give prompt and unbiased consideration to all manuscripts offered for publication, judging each on its merits without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s), and respecting the intellectual independence of the author(s). Situations that may lead to real or perceived conflicts of interest should be avoided. The editor(s) will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the program committee members, as appropriate.
The editor(s) and the editorial staff should not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure, conflicts of interest, and other issues
The editor(s) will be guided by COPE’s Retracting Guidelines when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in the Conference Proceedings. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the editor(s)’ own research without the written consent of the author(s). Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. The editor(s) is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
The editor(s) should seek to ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process. The editor(s) should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor or other member of the program committee 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 author(s), companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. The editor(s) should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
The editor(s) should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. The editor(s) should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct. The editor(s) should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Duties and responsibilities of REVIEWER(S)
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editor(s) in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communications with the author(s), may also assist the author(s) in improving the manuscript.
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt (timely) review will be impossible, should immediately notify the editor(s) and decline the invitation to review, so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except if authorized by the editor(s), in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor(s).
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author(s) is inappropriate and unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments so that the editor(s) and the author(s) may understand the basis of their comments.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author(s). 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 editor(s)’ attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data, paper or manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal 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. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the written consent of the author(s).
In addition, peer reviewers should be aware of all other detailed COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and use them in the review process.
Duties and responsibilities of AUTHOR(S)
The author(s) reporting results of original research should present a concise, 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 public sources of information to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are, therefore, unacceptable.
Originality and plagiarism
The author(s) should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the author(s) have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
The author(s) should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one Conference Proceedings (or journal, etc.) constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is, therefore, unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others used in a research project must always be given. The author(s) should also 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, should not be used or reported without explicit permission from the investigator with whom the information originated. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, cannot be used without permission of the author of the work being used.
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 named in an Acknowledgement section, but not identified as authors. 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 conflict 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 the author(s) discover a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her/their own published work, it is the author(s’) obligation to promptly notify the Conference Proceedings’ editor(s) or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.
Duties and responsibilities of PROGRAM COMMITTEE
The publisher and the editor(s) will establish a suitably qualified program committee whose members can actively contribute to the development and good management of the Conference and its Proceedings. Members of the program committee are aware of their role of membership in the Conference Proceedings, their expected duties and responsibilities are:
to offer expertise in their specialist area
to pre-review and review submitted manuscripts
to advise on conference proceedings policy, aims and scope
to act as ambassadors for the conference and its proceedings
to support and promote the conference and its proceedings
to work with the editor(s) to ensure ongoing development of the conference and its proceedings
to attract new and established authors and actively encourage article submissions
to submit some of their own work for consideration, ensuring that they adhere to conflict of interest rules and stating their relationship to the Conference Proceedings
to actively attend and contribute to program committee meetings
to accept commissions to write editorials, reviews and commentaries on papers in their specialist area
to assess the effects of the Conference Proceedings’ policies on author and reviewer behaviour and revising policies, as required, to encourage responsible behaviour and discourage misconduct
to ensure that any press releases issued reflect the message of the reported article and put it into context.
The editor(s) are obliged to consult the program committee members at least once a year to gauge their opinions about the running of the conference and Conference Proceedings, inform them of any changes to the policies and identify future challenges.
The editor(s) have the right to update the list of the program committee members according to the conference and Conference Proceedings needs.