Publication ethics

The journal “Sustainable Development Economics” adheres to the standards of editorial ethics and makes efforts to prevent its violation.

The type of Creative Commons license under which the cc by (Attribution) journal operates is the “Attribution” license.

Ethics of scientific publications is a system of professional behavior norms in the relationships between authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers in the process of creating, distributing and using scientific publications.

1. Duties of editors

1.1. Decision on publication. The editor of a scientific journal is regardless and independently responsible for making a decision on publication, relying on cooperation with the editorial board, the international expert council and the editorial board of the journal. The scientific content of the work under consideration and its scientific significance should always be the basis of publication decision. The editor may be guided by the policy of the editorial board of the journal, being limited by current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright, legality and plagiarism.
1.2. Impartiality. The editor should evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, origin, citizenship or political preferences of the authors.
1.3. Confidentiality. The editor and the editorial board are not required to disclose information about the accepted manuscript to third parties, except for authors, reviewers and other consultants.
1.4. Conflicts of interest and their Resolution Policy
1.4.1. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during the review and related to priority benefits should be kept confidential and cannot be used for personal gain.
1.4.2. Editors should refuse to review manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with authors, companies and other organizations associated with the manuscript.
1.5. Supervision of publications. The editor, who has provided convincing evidence that the statements or conclusions contained in the publication are erroneous, must inform the publisher about this in order to notify the publisher as soon as possible of changes, withdrawal of the publication, expression of concern and other appropriate actions.
1.6. Actions in case of ethical claims. The editor, together with the publisher, take adequate response measures in case of ethical claims concerning the reviewed manuscripts or published materials. Such measures generally include interaction with the authors of the manuscript and argumentation of the relevant complaint or claim, but may also involve interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.

2.Responsibilities of reviewers

2.1. Influence on the decisions of the editorial board. Reviewing helps the editor to make an adequate decision about the publication and through appropriate interaction with the authors can also help the author to improve the quality of the work. Reviewing is a necessary link in formal scientific communications, which is the core of the scientific approach. The editorial board shares the point of view that all scientists who want to publish their works are obliged to participate in reviewing manuscripts.
2.2. Performance. Any selected reviewer who is aware of the lack of his qualifications for reviewing the manuscript or does not have enough time to quickly complete the work should notify the editor and ask to be excluded from the review process of the relevant manuscript.
2.3. Confidentiality. Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. This work cannot be discussed with persons who do not have the authority to do so from the editor.
2.4. Requirements for the manuscript and objectivity. The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment of the text. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should clearly and argumentatively express their opinion.
2.5. Recognition of primary sources. Reviewers should identify significant published works that correspond to the topic and are not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. Any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) published earlier should have a corresponding bibliographic reference in the manuscript. The reviewer should also draw the editor’s attention to the significant similarities or coincidences found between the analyzed manuscript and any other published work within the scope of the reviewer’s scientific competence.
2.6. Information Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
2.6.1. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during the review and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and cannot be used for personal gain.
2.6.2. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with any of the authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.

3. Responsibilities of authors

3.1. Requirements for manuscripts. The authors of the manuscript should provide reliable results of the work done, as well as an objective judgment on the significance of the research. The data underlying the work must be presented accurately, without errors. The work should contain enough details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or knowingly erroneous statements are perceived as unethical behavior and unacceptable.

3.2 Data access and storage. The authors may be asked for raw data related to the manuscript for review and evaluation by editors. Authors should be prepared to provide open access to this kind of information, if possible, and in any case keep this data for a reasonable period of time after publication.

3.3. Originality and plagiarism

3.3.1. Authors should make sure that the original work is presented in full and, in case of using the works or statements of other authors, provide appropriate bibliographic references or citations.

3.3.2. Plagiarism can exist in many forms – from presenting someone else’s work as an author’s work to copying or paraphrasing essential parts of someone else’s work without attribution, as well as claiming their own rights to the results of someone else’s research. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical and unacceptable.

3.4. Multiplicity, redundancy and simultaneity of publications

3.4.1. In general, the author should not publish a manuscript, mostly devoted to the same research, in more than one journal as an original publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is perceived as unethical behavior and unacceptable.

3.4.2. In general, the author should not submit a previously published article for consideration in another journal.

3.4.3. The publication of a certain type of articles (for example, translated) in more than one journal is in some cases ethical if certain conditions are met. Authors and editors of interested journals may agree to re-publication, which necessarily presents the same data and interpretations as in the originally published work. A bibliographic reference to the first work should be presented in the second publication.

3.5. Recognition of primary sources. Authors should refer to publications that are relevant to the performance of the submitted work. Data obtained privately, for example, during a conversation, correspondence or in the process of discussion with third parties, should not be used or presented without the explicit written permission of the original source. Information obtained from confidential sources (for example, in the course of reviewing or evaluating manuscripts for grants) should not be used without the express written permission of the authors of the work related to confidential sources.

3.6. Authorship of the publication

3.6.1. The authors of the publication can only be persons who have made a significant contribution to the formation of the idea of the work, the development, execution or interpretation of the presented research. All those who have made significant contributions should be designated as co-authors. In cases where research participants have made a significant contribution in a particular direction in a research project, they should be indicated in the footnote as persons who have made a significant contribution to this study.

3.6.2. The author must make sure that all participants who have made a significant contribution to the study are presented as co-authors, and those who did not participate in the study are not listed as co-authors, and also make sure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the work and agreed to submit it for publication.

3.7. Information Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest. All authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived as having influenced the results or conclusions presented in the work. Examples of potential conflicts of interest to be disclosed include employment, consulting, stock ownership, receiving fees, providing expert opinions, patent application or patent registration, grants and other financial support. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.

3.8. Essential mistakes in published works. If the author finds significant mistakes or inaccuracies in the publication, the author must inform the editor of the journal or the publisher about it and interact with them with a view to removing the publication or correcting errors as soon as possible. If the editor or publisher has received information from a third party that the publication contains significant errors, the author is obliged to withdraw the work or fix the errors as soon as possible.