Ethic Statement


The publication of an article in a peer reviewed journal is an essential model for our journal  “European Journal of Economics, Law and Social Sciences (EJELS)”. It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher. Our ethic statements are based on Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Open Acces

“European Journal of Economics, Law and Social Sciences (EJELS)” is an Open Access Journal  that uses a funding model that does not charge readers or their institutions for access. “Open Access’ is the right of users to “read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles” and it is mandatory for a Journal to be included in an open acces journals directory.

Copyright

Copyright pertains to the exclusive rights to publish and distribute a work.  All articles published in European Journal of Economics, Law and Social Sciences (EJELS)  are subject to author’ s copyright, who retrieves all publishing rights in connection with the publication, transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise of their work.

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.

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 appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Publication decisions

The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.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 reviewers, external reviewers or other editors  in making this decision.

Duties of External Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. 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 paper 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 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 papers.

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.

Data Access and Retention

Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, 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.

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 behaviour and is unacceptable.

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.

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 appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and 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.

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 interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

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.

Peer Review Process

Authors submit their manuscripts via online system or electronically via email to ejels.journal@iipccl.org. Each research manuscript is assigned to an external editor for the double blinded peer review process which means the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa.

The Review Process step by step

All articles submitted to “European Journal of Economics, Law and Social Sciences” undergo  a rigorous double blinded peer review process. The review process may take up to 30-45 days. If reviewers needs more time, authors will be notified for the delay.

I. Submission of Paper

The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. You can use the online system or send it by email.

II. Editorial Office Assessment

The journal checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The Office checks also that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further. The paper at this stage is checked with iThenticate sofware for plagiarism.

III. Invitation to Reviewers

The editor sends invitations to individuals that would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained.

IV. Response to Invitations

Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. When declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers or the Editor will invite another one.

V. Review is Conducted

The reviewer sets time aside to read and review the paper. The reviewer takes notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

VI. Journal Evaluates the Reviews

The editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

VII. The Decision is Communicated

The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments.The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor’s decision is final

REVISED SUBMISSIONS

Regardless of the file format of the original submission, at revision authors must provide the journal with an editable file of the entire article. Keep the layout of the text as simple as possible. Most formatting codes will be removed and replaced on processing the article. The electronic text should be prepared in a way very similar to that of conventional manuscripts.To avoid unnecessary errors you are strongly advised to use the ‘spell-check’ and ‘grammar-check’ functions of your word processor.

How to prepare a Blinded Manuscript

Besides the obvious need to remove names and affiliations under the title within the manuscript, (this can be done from the Editor) there are other steps that need to be taken to ensure the manuscript is correctly prepared for double-blind peer review. To assist with this process the key items that need to be observed are as follows:

Use the third person to refer to work the Authors have previously undertaken, e.g. replace any phrases like “as we have shown before” with “… has been shown before [Anonymous, 2010]” .

Make sure figures do not contain any affiliation related identifier.

Do not eliminate essential self-references or other references but limit self-references only to papers that are relevant for those reviewing the submitted paper.

Cite papers published by the Author in the text as follows: ‘[Anonymous, 2010]’.

For blinding in the reference list: ‘[Anonymous 2010] Details omitted for double-blind reviewing.’

Remove references to funding sources.

Do not include acknowledgments

Remove any identifying information, including author names, from file names and ensure document properties are also anonymized.