JFEP Code of Ethics

The Journal of Financial and Economic Practice (JFEP) aspires to select and publish, through peer review, high quality research in the areas of finance and economics. In order to achieve this goal, the entire peer review and publication process must be thorough, objective and fair. The reputation of the Journal as viewed by all stakeholders is greatly dependent upon these attributes.  JFEP, therefore, has established the following code of ethics to which authors and JFEP editors and reviewers are expected to adhere.   All JFEP stakeholders are encouraged to study these guidelines and address any questions or concerns to the JFEP Editor, Vince Showers, at jfep@bradley.edu. These guidelines apply to manuscripts submitted to JFEP starting January 1, 2014, and may be revised at any time by the Editor.

 

I. JFEP CODE OF ETHICS FOR AUTHORS

Originality:

When an Author submits a manuscript to JFEP, the manuscript will be an original work.  Authors will not submit the same work, in whole or in part, to two places of publication at the same time, or at any time while the manuscript is under review at JFEP.  Authors will not submit a manuscript previously published or accepted for publication elsewhere, either in whole or in part, or published in a second language.  The exception to the “originality” rule is a conference proceedings paper, where the paper is work in progress toward the manuscript submitted to JFEP.  

Work by the author that is previously published, in press, or is under consideration for publication elsewhere, will be cited in the manuscript.

Authors will appropriately cite datasets used in their work clearly identifying the origin of the data

Self-citation is acceptable, but JFEP  authors will avoid excessively citing their earlier works in order to inflate their citation count. JFEP authors will also avoid self-citation that might violate the double-blind review process.

Authors will not submit a manuscript to JFEP that was previously rejected by JFEP. 

Plagiarism and Self-Plagiarism:

All work in the manuscript will be free of any plagiarism, falsification, fabrications, or omission of significant material.  Authors will explicitly cite others' previous work and ideas, even if the work or ideas are not quoted verbatim or paraphrased. This standard applies whether the previous work is published, unpublished, or electronically available.

Authors will avoid obvious redundancy (or “self-plagiarism”). While authors can and often do develop different features of an argument in more than one manuscript, redundancy occurs when manuscripts only differ primarily in appearance.  Presenting ideas and findings as separate and distinct research without acknowledging other related work creates an appearance (either unintentionally or deliberately) of deception to reviewers and readers by overinflating the intellectual contribution of the manuscript.  Since publication decisions are influenced by the novelty and innovativeness of manuscripts, such deception is inappropriate and unethical.

Authors will minimize their recycling of previous writings. If a previous writing requires revisiting by the author, the article will be cited and the author will provide clearly stated objectives and reasons for the revisit.

If exact sentences or paragraphs that appear in another work by the Author are included in the manuscript, the material will be put in quotation marks and appropriately cited.

Conflicts of Interest:

Authors will acknowledge any specific supporting entity providing financial support (through grants, etc…) for any research presented in the manuscript and will be open in their findings concerning any potential agenda or conflict of interest issues.  Authors should avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest throughout the research process.  If responsibilities to funders, clients and employers create or appear to create a conflict of interest in the creation and outcome of the findings in the manuscript all such interests (or their absence) will be declared in writing by the authors upon submission of the manuscript. If any are declared, they will be published with the article, if accepted. If there is doubt about whether a circumstance represents a conflict, it should be disclosed, so that the editor may assess its significance.

Double-Blind Review:

JFEP follows a double-blind review process, whereby authors do not know reviewers and vice versa. Authors should respect the confidentiality of the review process and should not reveal themselves to reviewers, and vice versa. For example, the manuscript should not include any self-revealing information that would identify the author to a reviewer.

Authors should not post their submitted manuscript (including working papers and prior drafts) on websites where it could be easily discovered by potential reviewers.

Accuracy:

Authors have the ultimate responsibility for all materials included in a manuscript submitted to JFEP. Authors are obligated to present an accurate account of the research performed as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the research.

Authors should report their findings fully and should not omit data that are relevant within the context of the research question(s). Results should be reported whether they support or contradict expected outcomes. Authors should take particular care to present relevant qualifications to their research or to the findings and interpretations of them. Underlying assumptions, theories, methods, measures and research designs relevant to the findings and interpretations of their work should be disclosed. 

The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit peers with access to the same dataset to repeat the work. 

If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the manuscript or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.                

Co-Authorship:

All co-authors of papers should have made significant contributions to the work and share accountability for the results. Authors should take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have contributed. Other contributions, including initial researchers of data analyzed by the authors, should be cited in the manuscript's Acknowledgements or a footnote.  The author corresponding to JFEP should have also sent all living co-authors a draft and obtained their consent to a JFEP submission and publication.

Human Subjects:

Authors have a responsibility to preserve and protect the privacy, dignity, well-being and freedom of human subjects and research participants. Informed consent should be sought from all human subjects, and if confidentiality or anonymity is requested it should be honored.

Manuscripts involving information obtained from human subjects should comply with the relevant Human Subject Protocol requirements at the Author's university.

Copyright Law:

Authors should check their manuscripts for possible breaches of copyright law (e.g., where permissions are needed for quotations, artwork or tables taken from other publications) and secure the necessary permissions before submission.

Authors should avoid anything in the text of the manuscript that might be actionable, such as defamation. Authors should avoid using sexist and biased language that could be interpreted as denigrating to ethnic or other groups; for example, plural rather than single pronouns ("they" rather than "he") are recommended.

Timeliness:

Authors should be prompt with their manuscript revisions. If an author cannot meet the deadline given, the author should contact the JFEP Editor as soon as possible to determine whether a longer time period or withdrawal from the review process should be chosen.

Post publication:

JFEP holds the copyright to all its published articles.  

JFEP authors must ask for permission to publish their article (or a selection from the article) elsewhere, such as a JFEP article later appearing as a book chapter or as a translation.  

II. JFEP CODE OF ETHICS FOR ITS EDITOR(S)

Independence:

A JFEP editor must maintain editorial independence and work to ensure that authors have editorial freedom. Responsibility for acceptance or rejection of manuscripts rests with the editor(s). The editor(s) will normally determine the publication decision based on the advice from reviewers; however, manuscripts that editors deem clearly inappropriate may be rejected without such review.  

Unbiased:

A JFEP editor will exercise his/her position of privilege in a confidential, unbiased, prompt, constructive and sensitive manner. An editor has the duty to judge manuscripts only on their scholarly merits and will make editorial decisions without personal or ideological favoritism or malice.

Conflict of Interest:

A JFEP editor will avoid any practice that gives rise to a conflict of interest or the reasonable appearance of one. For example:

  • The Editor-in-Chief and any Associate Editors employed by Bradley University will not publish in the Journal   except for materials that are clearly identified as non-refereed or single-blind refereed.

Editorial responsibility (including selection of reviewers and final publication decision) of manuscripts which have a real or potential conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, financial or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript will be delegated to another qualified person not currently a JFEP editor or directly associated with Bradley University. If a manuscript is accepted for publication under the procedure previously described, associate editors of JFEP who are not employed by Bradley University are limited to one publication every three years in the Journal. Examples of connections that represent possible Editor-Author conflicts of interest include:

  • the Editor and Author are both employed by the same institution;
  • the Author was a member of the Editor’s dissertation committee, or vice versa; or
  • the Author and Editor are currently Co-Authors on another manuscript or have been Co-Authors on a manuscript within the past two years.

Double-Blind Review:

JFEP follows a double-blind review process, whereby authors do not know Reviewers and vice versa. Where articles appear in the Journal that were not double-blind reviewed, the standard of review should be clearly stated in the printed Acknowledgements accompanying the article.

Confidentiality:

The JFEP Editor and its editorial staff shall not disclose information about a manuscript to anyone other than reviewers and authors. A JFEP Editor is expected to ensure the confidentiality of the double-blind review process and not divulge any information that might identify authors to reviewers or vice versa. If on the rare occasion a reviewer wishes or is asked to identify him/herself to the authors after the review process, anonymity can only be lifted upon written permission from the reviewer.

Review Quality:

Two reviewers will be invited to comment on a manuscript. Authors may request that certain reviewers not be used, but this decision is left to the JFEP Editor's discretion. The editor should routinely assess all reviews for quality. In rare circumstances, an editor may edit a review before sending it to an author (for example, to remove a phrase that would identify the reviewer) or not send the review to the author if it is not constructive or appropriate. Ratings of review quality and other performance characteristics will be periodically assessed by the JFEP Editor-in-Chief to assure optimal journal performance. These ratings should also contribute to decisions on reappointment to the JFEP Editorial Review Board and to ongoing review requests. Individual performance data on reviewers will be kept confidential within the JFEP editorial staff.

Timeliness:

A JFEP Editor will take steps to ensure the timely review of all manuscripts and respond promptly to inquiries from authors about the status of a review.

Decision Quality:

A JFEP Editor has the responsibility to provide the author with an explanation of the editorial decision on a manuscript. The editor should write high-quality editorial letters that integrate reviewer comments and offer additional suggestions to the author. The editor will not send a decision letter, without explanation, attached to a set of reviewer comments.

A JFEP Editor has a responsibility to discourage authors from activities designed to either inflate the authors’ own citations or the Journal’s citations when applicable.  Also, a JFEP Editor will not engage in such activities on behalf of JFEP. Author and journal self-cites should be included where appropriate and as needed, but JFEP editors should not encourage or request authors to engage in frivolous or unnecessary citations, either by the authors to their own previous publications or to other articles published in JFEP.

Accuracy:

When a JFEP Editor is presented with convincing evidence by a reviewer that the substance or conclusion of an unpublished manuscript is erroneous, the editor will promptly inform the author. If similar evidence is presented for a published manuscript, the editor should ensure prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as appropriate.

Authority:

The JFEP Editor-in-Chief must have ultimate authority and responsibility for the Journal. The Editor-in-Chief should respect the Journal's constituents (readers, authors, reviewers, editorial staff and publisher), and work to ensure the honesty and integrity of the Journal's contents and continuous improvement in journal quality. The Editor-in-Chief should select the members of the editorial team, including a JFEP Editorial Review Board; outline the rights and responsibilities of these individuals; and regularly assess their performance. The Editor-in-Chief should develop a strategy plan for the future of the Journal, including facilitating transition to the next editorial team.

Performance:

The Editor-in-Chief should develop performance metrics for the Journal. The Editor-in-Chief will monitor and provide acceptance rates and other pertinent performance data upon request. Performance measures should be used to assess changes in peer review and publication processes that might improve Journal performance.

 

III. JFEP CODE OF ETHICS FOR REVIEWERS

Reciprocity:

Reviewing for journals is a professional activity that provides value for the profession as a whole, and should be encouraged. Scholars who submit manuscripts to JFEP are normally expected to reciprocate by accepting an invitation to review for the Journal.

Right of Refusal:

Refusals to review a manuscript are from time to time necessary. For example, a reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript should refuse to review the manuscript. Reviewers should refuse to review a manuscript if there is a potential conflict of interest. If asked to review a manuscript they have previously reviewed for another journal, reviewers should make that prior review known to the JFEP Editor.

Double-Blind Review:

JFEP has a double-blind review process. Reviewers should refuse to review manuscripts in which they have provided earlier written comments on the manuscript (or similar version) for another journal. If a reviewer knows the identity of an author, the reviewer should decline being a reviewer for that manuscript. Reviewers also have a responsibility to avoid writing anything in the comments that could identify them to an author.

Conflict of Interest:

Normally, reviewers should refuse to review manuscripts in which they recognize a conflict of interest with the findings presented in the manuscript or believe there could be an appearance of a conflict of interest. Reviewers who might have a conflict of interest on a particular manuscript should reveal that conflict to the editor, who can then determine if refusal to review is appropriate.

Unbiased:

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly and professionally. Reviewers should avoid personal biases in their comments and judgments.

Confidentiality:

Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the review process. It is important to recognize that the manuscript is confidential. Reviewers should not discuss the manuscript with anyone other than the JFEP Editor. If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should notify the editor in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties unless officially notified by the Journal that they may do so.

Accuracy:

In evaluating the manuscript and crafting comments to the authors, reviewers should always keep in mind that their review captures their scholarly judgment about the manuscript. Reviewers should be honest with the authors in terms of their concerns about the manuscript. Reviewers should explain and support their scholarly judgments adequately and provide sufficient detail for the authors in order to justify their recommendation to the editor. Reviewer comments should be constructive and concise and void of demeaning or tangential comments.

Timeliness:

Reviewers should be prompt with their reviews. If a reviewer cannot meet the deadline given, the reviewer should contact the JFEP Editor as soon as possible to determine whether a longer time period is warranted or a new reviewer should be chosen.

 

NOTE

The JFEP Code of Ethics draws heavily from the Code of Ethics for the Journal of International Business Studies developed by Lorraine Eden & John Cantwell (www.palgrave-journals.com/jibs/jibs_ethics_code.html).

Vince Showers, current JFEP Editor

Last revision: January 9, 2014