Publication ethics Scientific journal “Scientific View: Economics and Management” is responsible for Publication Ethics based on the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors to ensure publication quality.
Duties and rights of authors:
1. Authors are responsible for the originality of the text of the scientific article, the accuracy of facts, citations, statistics, proper names, geographical names, and other information, as well as for the fact that the materials do not contain non-publicly accessible data.
2. If an author finds a significant error or inaccuracies in his or her own published work, the author’s duty is to immediately notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to reject or correct the article.
3. Neither the editors nor the editorial board is responsible for the authors’ thoughts, views, and content of the manuscripts published in the journal. The originality, correction of manuscripts and errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.
Duties and rights of the editorial board:
1. The editorial board decides on the publication of submitted papers, based on the journal’s policy and based on the academic values and conclusions of reviewers.
2. The editor evaluates manuscripts regardless of previous merit, race, ethnic origin, gender, religion, citizenship, sexual orientation, or political philosophy of the authors.
3. The journal’s editorial board guarantees that personal data other than that which is publicly provided in the article will be used solely for internal editorial purposes and will not be disseminated and disclosed to third parties.
Duties and rights of reviewers:
1. Any manuscripts and additional materials received for review shall be treated as confidential documents. They cannot be demonstrated and discussed with third parties.
2. A reviewer who is aware in advance of a lack of time for review or of facts that make a review at the appointed time impossible shall notify the editor and release himself/herself from the review process.
3. Reviews shall be objective. Reviewers shall clearly and reasonably express their views on controversial points. Personal criticism of the reviewer is unacceptable.