The Journal of Innovation Management (JIM) refers to COPE's Guidelines for Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing and COPE Ethics toolkit for a successful editorial office: A COPE Guide. This toolkit includes a 'General Approach to Publication Ethics for the Editorial Office' flowchart which includes best practice tips on handling ethical issues.

The following section provides details of duties of authors, reviewers, and editors:

Authors    

For submissions to JIM, all listed authors should have made significant contributions to the manuscript and must have provided their consent for the final submitted version.

 

JIM authors must comply with best practice in publication ethics, specifically concerning:

• authorship
• submission declaration and verification
• originality and plagiarism
• use of Generative AI and AI-assisted Technologies
• digital image manipulation
• corrections and retractions (including notification of fundamental errors)
• data access and retention
• diversity and inclusivity (use of inclusive language)
• declaration of conflicts of interest
• funding declaration 
• misconduct in publishing
• hazards to human or animal subjects 

 

In addition, authors should present their work with sufficient detail and references in a clear and objective manner so that replication of the research is possible.

 

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available, if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals upon request, provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.

 

JIM's Author Guidelines/Information Kit. 

 

Editors    

The Editor-in-Chief hold exclusive and independent responsibility over JIM’s entire editorial content and the timing of publication of that content. Acceptance decisions are based on their academic merit (importance, originality, validity, clarity) and their relevance to the Journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation.

 

Editors will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone else other than the corresponding author and co-authors, assigned editor or editor-in-charge, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial advisors, and the publisher, as appropriate.

 

Editors must ensure a fair and unbiased double-blind peer-review of submitted manuscripts, and will recuse themselves, to the handling Editor-in-Chief from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from collaborative or competitive relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

 

Editors must guard the integrity of the publication by pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct and issuing corrections and retractions when needed. Editors should also follow rigorous editorial policies that not only promote the transparency and objectivity of peer review but also prevent reviewer and editorial misconduct.

 

Reviewers    

Reviewers must contribute to editorial decision-making with standards of objectivity, promptness, and confidentiality. Any invited reviewer with conflicting interests or lack of expertise regarding the manuscript to be reviewed should notify the editor and decline the invitation to review. The review, conducted comprehensively and objectively, should be reported with clearly stated observations with supporting evidence that can facilitate the editor's decision-making process as well as help authors to improve their manuscripts.

 

Alertness to Ethical Issues - JIM Reviewers have a responsibility to be vigilant regarding possible ethical concerns in a manuscript and should promptly inform the handling Editor-in-Chief of any such issues. This entails recognizing notable resemblances or intersections between the manuscript under review and any prior publications known to the reviewer. Should the reviewer ascertain the prior reporting of an observation, derivation, or argument, the evaluation should incorporate the suitable citation. While proposing citations, reviewers are expected to ground their suggestions in valid scientific rationale, eschewing any ulterior motive of inflating personal citation metrics or advancing their own or their colleagues' work. The primary emphasis should consistently reside in authentic scientific excellence and the augmentation of the overall manuscript quality.

 

Editorial contact: editors@open-jim.org