Inclusion In DOAJ
Publication Ethics & Malpractice
The Higher Education Commission of Pakistan has prepared Publication Ethics guidelines for all its approved Journals. This journal follows these guidelines which are available Download. In addition to HEC RMS supports and adopted “Publication ethics and malpractice” which are based on COPE’s Best Practice https://publicationethics.org/core-practices and Elsevier PERK http://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk
Reviews of Management Sciences is a peer-reviewed journal. RMS follows the ethical guideline for publications suggested by the Committee on Publication Ethics' (COPE), which is directed at editors, referees, and authors.
DUTIES OF EDITORS
Decisions on publication: It is up to the Editors of the "Reviews of Management Sciences" to decide whether or not the suggested papers should be published.
Honesty: The Editors examine articles submitted for publication solely on the basis of their scientific value, without regard for the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or political views.
Confidentiality: The Editors and members of the working group agree not to reveal information about the papers submitted for publication to anyone except the author, referees, and editor.
Conflict of interest and disclosure: The Editors agree not to utilize the content of papers submitted for publication in their research without the author's explicit agreement.
DUTIES OF REFEREES
Contribution to the editorial decision: Peer review is a method that assists editors in making decisions about proposed articles and also allows the author to improve the contribution that is submitted for publication.
Respect for time: Any referee who does not feel up to the task at hand or who is unable to complete the evaluation of the proposed contribution within the allotted time must notify the coordinators immediately.
Confidentiality: Each reading assignment should be treated as private. As a result, these writings must not be discussed with anyone without the editors' express permission.
Objectivity: The peer-review process must be carried out objectively. Any personal judgments regarding the contributors' authors are deemed unacceptable. The referees must provide acceptable justifications for their decisions.
Text display: Referees agree to appropriately highlight bibliographical references to foundational works that the author may have overlooked. Any parallels or overlaps between the text acquired in reading and other works known to the referee must likewise be reported to the editors.
Conflict of interest and disclosure: Secret information or information received during the peer-review process must be kept private and not exploited for personal gain. The referee will not read papers for which there is a potential conflict of interest due to prior collaboration or rivalry with the author and/or her/his institution.
DUTIES OF AUTHORS
Access and retention: The authors of the articles should make available the sources or data on which the research is based if the editors feel is suitable so that they can be retained for a fair period of time after publication and may be made accessible.
Originality and plagiarism: The authors must certify that they have written an original work in its entirety, specifying all of the materials they used.
Publications multiple, repetitive, and/or competitors: The author should not publish articles in more than one scientific journal that duplicate the same search results: simultaneous submission of the same contribution to numerous scientific journals is unethical and repulsive.
List of sources: The author should always give credit to the sources and contributors that are referenced in the post.
Authorship: All people who have made a major contribution to the design, organization, implementation, and revision of the research that forms the basis of the paper should be referred to as co-authors. Other people's contributions must be acknowledged explicitly if they played a key role in some phases of the research. In the case of multiple-author contributions, the author who submits the text to the journal must certify that all other co-authors' names have been correctly stated, that the final version of the article has received their approval, and that they have given their consent for publication in the "Reviews of Management Sciences"
Conflict of interest and disclosure: All authors must expressly state that they have no conflicts of interest that could have influenced the findings or interpretations provided. Authors must additionally include any research funding agencies and/or the project that resulted in the publication of the article.
Errors in published articles: When an author notices a substantial error or inaccuracy in his or her work, he or she should immediately notify the journal editors and give them all the information they need to include the appropriate revisions at the bottom of the paper.
Corrections and Retractions: If there is suspicion of misbehavior or alleged fraud, the journals and/or Publisher will carry out an investigation following COPE guidelines/ Publishers Policy. If, after an investigation, there are valid concerns, the authors concerned will be contacted under their given email address and given an opportunity to address the issue. Depending on the situation, this may result in the journal and/or Publisher’s implementation of the following measures, including, but not limited to:
- If the manuscript is still under consideration, it may be rejected and returned to the author.
- If the article has already been published online, depending on the nature and severity of the infraction:
- an erratum/correction may be placed with the article.
- an editor’s note or editorial expression of concern may be placed with the article.
- or, in severe cases, retraction of the article may occur.
The reason will be given in the published erratum/correction, editor’s note, editorial expression of concern, or retraction notice. Please note that retraction means that the article is maintained on the platform watermarked “retracted” and the explanation is provided in a note linked to the watermarked article.
- The author’s institution may be informed.