of Ethics Online Collection: None
Code of Ethics
* JIBS Code of ethics for authors |
* JIBS Code of ethics for editors |
* JIBS Code of ethics for reviewers |
* Notes |
Download this page as a PDF document (81KB)
The Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS) aspires to select
and publish, through peer review, the highest quality research in international
business. In order to achieve this goal, the entire peer review and publication
process should be thorough, objective and fair. Journal reputation depends
heavily on the trust by all stakeholders in the fairness of the peer review
and publication process. A formal code of ethics, outlining guidelines
for good behavior and proposing solutions to ethical dilemmas facing Authors,
Editors and Reviewers, can build stakeholder trust and improve journal
reputation. With this goal in mind, the JIBS Code of Ethics is designed
to be a comprehensive policy for peer review and publication ethics in
the Journal of International Business Studies. The Code describes JIBS's
policies for ensuring the ethical treatment of all participants in the
peer review and publication process. JIBS Authors, Editors and Reviewers
are encouraged to study these guidelines and address any questions or
concerns to the JIBS Editor-in-Chief, Lorraine Eden, at editor-in-chief@jibs.net.
These guidelines will apply to manuscripts submitted to JIBS starting
July 1, 2007, and may be revised at any time by the Editor-in-Chief.
Top of page
JIBS CODE OF ETHICS FOR AUTHORS
Accuracy:
Authors have the ultimate responsibility for all materials included in
a manuscript submitted to JIBS. 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.
Originality:
When an Author submits a manuscript to JIBS:
* The manuscript must be an original work. Authors must not submit the
same work to two places of publication at the same time, or at any time
while the manuscript is under review at JIBS. It is also improper for
an Author to submit a manuscript describing essentially the same research
to more than one place of publication, unless it is a resubmission of
a manuscript rejected for or withdrawn from publication.
* The manuscript must not have been previously published or accepted for
publication elsewhere, either in whole (including book chapters) or in
part (including paragraphs of text or exhibits), whether in English or
another language. The only exception is a conference proceedings paper,
where the paper is work in progress toward the manuscript submitted to
JIBS. The Author must inform the JIBS Office of the conference proceedings
paper and, if requested by the JIBS Office, send it to the JIBS Editor
handling the manuscript. JIBS holds the copyright to all published articles.
* If the manuscript contains materials that overlap with work that is
previously published, that is in press, or that is under consideration
for publication elsewhere, the Author must cite this work in the manuscript.
The Author must also inform the JIBS Office of the related work and, if
requested, send the manuscript to the Editor. Authors should explicitly
cite their own earlier work and ideas, even when the work or ideas are
not quoted verbatim or paraphrased in the manuscript. If exact sentences
or paragraphs that appear in another work by the Author are included in
the manuscript, the material should be put in quotation marks and appropriately
cited.
* The manuscript should identify the origin, and originality, of any proprietary,
non-standard datasets used in the paper. If the dataset has been used
elsewhere by this or another Author the manuscript should cite these other
works, whether published or not.
* While self-citation is encouraged, Authors should avoid excessively
citing their earlier works in order to inflate their citation count. Authors
should also avoid self-citation that might violate the double-blind review
process. In such cases, the Author should include the information in the
manuscript's Acknowledgements (which are not forwarded to the Reviewers)
and also inform the JIBS Editor handling the manuscript.
* Authors should not submit a manuscript to JIBS that was previously submitted
to and rejected by a JIBS Editor. If an earlier version was previously
rejected by JIBS, and the Author wishes to submit a revised version for
review, this fact and the justification for resubmission should be clearly
communicated by the Author to the JIBS Managing Editor at the time of
submission. Only under rare circumstances will a second submission be
permissible.
Co-Authorship:
All Co-Authors of papers should have made significant contributions to
the work and share accountability for the results. Authorship and credit
should be shared in proportion to the various parties' contributions.
Authors should take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit,
only for work they have actually performed or to which they have contributed.
Other contributions should be cited in the manuscript's Acknowledgements
or an endnote. Authors should normally list a student as the principal
Co-Author on multiple-authored publications that substantially derive
from the student's dissertation or thesis. Authors who analyze data from
others should explicitly acknowledge the contribution of the initial researchers.
The Corresponding Author who submits a manuscript to JIBS should have
sent all living Co-Authors a draft and obtained their assent to submission
and publication.
Conflicts of Interest:
A conflict of interest is some fact known to a participant in the publication process that if revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived (or an Author, Reviewer, or Editor feel defensive). Conflicts of interest may influence the judgment of Authors, Reviewers, and Editors. Possible conflicts often are not immediately apparent to others. They may be personal, commercial, political, academic, or financial. Financial interests may include employment, research funding (received or pending), stock or share ownership, patents, payment for lectures or travel, consultancies, non-financial support, or any fiduciary interest in the company. The perception of a conflict of interest is nearly as important as an actual conflict, since both erode trust. Authors should avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest throughout the research process.
* All such interests (or their absence) should be declared in writing
by Authors upon submission of the manuscript. If any are declared, they
should be published with the article. If there is doubt about whether
a circumstance represents a conflict, it should be disclosed, so that
Editors may assess its significance. Any queries about possible conflicts
of interest should be addressed to the JIBS Office or Editor-in-Chief.
* Authors should disclose in the manuscript's Acknowledgements 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. Authors may withhold the
names of specific sponsors if they provide an adequate and full description
of the sponsor's nature and interest.
* When submitting a manuscript to JIBS, the Corresponding Author should
recommend an Editor and up to four possible Reviewers for the manuscript.
Authors should avoid any possible conflict of interest, or appearance
of conflict of interest, in these selections. Such conflicts of interest
apply not only to the Corresponding Author but to any Co-Authors on the
manuscript. Examples of possible conflicts of interest include: (1) the
Author is at the same institution as the Editor or Reviewer; (2) the Author
was a member of the Editor or Reviewer's dissertation committee, or vice
versa; or (3) the Author and Editor or Reviewer are currently Co-Authors
on another manuscript or have been Co-Authors on a manuscript within the
past two years. Authors should not nominate individuals whom they know
have already read the manuscript or a previous version of the manuscript
since such knowledge would automatically violate the double-blind review
process.
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
human subjects (surveys, simulations, interviews) should comply with the
relevant Human Subject Protocol requirements at the Author's university.
Double-Blind Review:
JIBS 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.
Plagiarism:
All work in the manuscript should be free of any plagiarism, falsification, fabrications, or omission of significant material. Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as the Author's own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper without attribution, to claiming results from research conducted by others. Authors are expected to explicitly cite others' 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. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Self-plagiarism is also unacceptable publishing behavior. Self-plagiarism
can occur in at least two ways: (1) Authors recycle portions of their
previous writings by using identical or nearly identical sentences or
paragraphs from earlier writings in subsequent research papers, without
quotation or acknowledgement; or (2) Authors create multiple papers that
are slight variations on each other, which are submitted for publication
in different journals but without acknowledgement of the other papers.
Authors can and often do develop different aspects of an argument in more
than one manuscript. However, manuscripts that differ primarily in appearance,
but are presented as separate and distinct research without acknowledging
other related work, constitute attempts (whether unintentional or deliberate)
to deceive reviewers and readers by overinflating the intellectual contribution
of the manuscript. Authors should minimize their recycling of previous
writings. If recycling is unavoidable, the Author should inform the Editor
at the time of submission and reference the previous writings in the manuscript.
Such self-referencing should be worded carefully so as to avoid compromising
the double-blind review process.
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 JIBS Managing
Editor as soon as possible to determine whether a longer time period or
withdrawal from the review process should be chosen.
Top of page
JIBS CODE OF ETHICS FOR EDITORS
Independence:
JIBS Editors must maintain their editorial independence and work to ensure
that Authors have editorial freedom. Responsibility for acceptance or
rejection of manuscripts rests with the Editors. Doing so normally entails
advice from Reviewers; however, manuscripts that Editors deem clearly
inappropriate may be rejected without such review.
Unbiased:
Editors should exercise their position of privilege in a confidential,
unbiased, prompt, constructive and sensitive manner. Editors have the
duty to judge manuscripts only on their scholarly merits. Editors should
operate without personal or ideological favoritism or malice.
Decision Quality:
Editors have a responsibility to provide the Author with an explanation
of the editorial decision on a manuscript. Editors should write high-quality
editorial letters that integrate reviewer comments and offer additional
suggestions to the Author. Editors should not send a decision letter,
without explanation, attached to a set of reviewer comments.
Conflict of Interest:
Editors should avoid any practice that gives rise to a conflict of interest or the reasonable appearance of one. For example:
* To avoid any appearance of a potential conflict of interest, the Editor-in-Chief
should not publish in the Journal except for materials that are clearly
identifiable or identified as non-refereed or single-blind refereed. Editorial
responsibility and authority for any manuscript authored by a JIBS Editor
and submitted to JIBS should be delegated by the JIBS Editor-in-Chief
to another qualified person, such as a past Editor of the Journal or a
member of the JIBS Consulting Editors Board. Editorial consideration of
the manuscript in any way or form by the Author-Editor is never acceptable.
* Editors should excuse themselves from considering a manuscript in which
they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative,
financial or other relationships or connections with any of the Authors,
companies or institutions connected to the manuscript. Examples of connections
that represent possible Editor-Author conflicts of interest include: (1)
the Editor and Author are both employed by the same institution; (2) the
Editor was a member of the Author's dissertation committee, or vice versa;
or (3) 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:
JIBS 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. For example,
an introductory article written by Guest Editors for a Special Issue would
normally be single-blind reviewed, and should be so identified when published.
The level of review for an invited work published in the Journal (for
example, a Commentary written by the Author(s) who received the JIBS Decade
Award) should be stated in the Acknowledgements.
Confidentiality:
Editors and their editorial staff including student workers shall not
disclose information about a manuscript to anyone other than Reviewers
and Authors. Office procedures should be in place to maintain confidentiality
of the review process. JIBS Editors are 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. The anonymity of Reviewers
can only be lifted if Editors receive permission from Reviewers to reveal
their identities. Editors should ensure that their staff members conform
to this practice. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript
should not be used in an Editor's own research without the express written
consent of the Author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through
peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Review Quality:
Normally, three Reviewers should be invited to comment on a manuscript,
but a minimum of two Reviewers is acceptable. Authors may request that
certain Reviewers not be used, but this decision should be left to 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 should
be periodically assessed by the JIBS Editor-in-Chief to assure optimal
journal performance. These ratings should also contribute to decisions
on reappointment to the JIBS Editorial Review Board and to ongoing review
requests. Individual performance data on Reviewers should be available
to the Editors but otherwise kept confidential.
Accuracy:
An Editor presented with convincing evidence by a Reviewer that the substance
or conclusion of an unpublished manuscript is erroneous should 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.
Timeliness:
Editors should take steps to ensure the timely review of all manuscripts
and respond promptly to inquiries from Authors about the status of a review.
Authority:
The JIBS Editor-in-Chief is selected by, reports directly to and serves
at the pleasure of the Academy of International Business (AIB) Executive
Board. The 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, Editors, 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 an 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.
These metrics should be presented to the AIB Executive Board on a regular
basis. The Journal should publish annual audits of acceptance rates, publication
intervals, percentage of submissions sent out for external peer review,
and other performance data. Performance measures should be used to assess
changes in peer review and publication processes that might improve Journal
performance.
Top of page
JIBS 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 JIBS 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,
Reviewers should make that prior review known to the JIBS Editor, unless
it is clear that they are being asked to provide a reappraisal.
Double-Blind Review:
JIBS has a double-blind review process. Reviewers should refuse to review
manuscripts where they have provided written comments on the manuscript
or an earlier version to the Author. If a Reviewer knows the identity
of an Author or Co-Author, this would normally be grounds for refusal
to review. Reviewers also have a responsibility to avoid writing, doing
or saying anything that could identify them to an Author.
Conflict of Interest:
Normally, Reviewers should refuse to review manuscripts in which they
have any conflicts of interest resulting from collaborative, financial,
institutional, personal, or other relationships or connections with any
of the companies, institutions, or people connected to the papers. Reviewers
who might have a conflict of interest on a particular manuscript should
reveal that conflict to the Editor, who will then determine their appropriate
level of involvement. An example occurs when the Reviewer has a similar
manuscript under review in the same or another journal or a similar research
project nearing completion. Note that under the double-blind review process,
since Reviewers do not know Authors, Reviewers are unlikely to be aware
of and are therefore not bound by conflicts of interest involving Authors.
If Reviewers do become aware of such conflicts, they should inform the
Editor.
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 JIBS Editor,
nor should they discuss any information from the manuscript without permission.
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 Author(s),
Reviewers should always keep in mind that their review captures their
scholarly judgment about the manuscript. Reviewers should be honest with
the Author in terms of their concerns about the manuscript. Reviewers
should explain and support their scholarly judgments adequately; that
is, they should provide sufficient detail to the Author to justify their
recommendation to the Editor. Reviews should not be "two-faced",
providing overly friendly reviews to the Author but very negative reviews
in private to the Editor.
Timeliness:
Reviewers should be prompt with their reviews. If a Reviewer cannot meet
the deadline given, the Reviewer should contact the JIBS Managing Editor
as soon as possible to determine whether a longer time period or a new
Reviewer should be chosen.
Top of page
NOTES
The JIBS Code of Ethics was developed with the research assistance of Dean Matula. Helpful comments were received from Paul Beamish, Michael Hitt, Anne Hoekman, Bruce Kogut, Lee Radebaugh, Anne Tsui, Rosalie Tung and Alain Verbeke. The Code draws heavily from the following on-line sources, which are recommended reading on ethical guidelines for journals:
* Academy of Management. 2005. Academy of Management Code of Ethics.
Accessed June 16, 2007.http://www.aomonline.org/governanceandethics/aomrevisedcodeofethics.pdf
* American Chemical Society. 2006. Ethical Guidelines to the Publication
of Chemical Research. Accessed June 16, 2007. http://pubs.acs.org/ethics/ethics.pdf?sessid=1658
* American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Ethical Guidelines for AIChE
Publications. Accessed June 16, 2007. http://www.aiche.org/Publications/Resources/Ethics.aspx
* Council of Science Editors (CSE). CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity
in Scientific Journal Publications. Accessed June 16, 2007. http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/editorial_policies/whitepaper/entire_whitepaper.pdf
* Elsevier. Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication. Accessed June
16, 2007. http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/intro.cws_home/ethical_guidelines
* Green, Lelia. 2005. Reviewing the Scourge of Self-Plagiarism. M/C Journal,
8(5). Accessed September 10, 2007. http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0510/07-green.php
* Journal of Wildlife Diseases. Ethical Guidelines to Publication in the
Journal of Wildlife Diseases. Accessed June 16, 2007. http://www.wildlifedisease.org/Documents/JWD/WDA_Ethics.pdf
* Rockwell, Sara. Ethics of Peer Review: A Guide for Manuscript Reviewers.
Accessed June 16, 2007. http://radonc.yale.edu/pdf/Ethical_Issues_in_Peer_Review.pdf
* Taylor & Francis. 2006. Ethical Guidelines to Publication of Scientific
Research. February. Accessed June 16, 2007. http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pdf/announcements/tmph_guidelines06.pdf
* World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). WAME Publication Ethics
Policies for Medical Journals. Accessed June 16, 2007. http://www.wame.org/resources/publication-ethics-policies-for-medical-journals
Prepared by Lorraine Eden, JIBS Editor-in-Chief Elect
Last revision: September 10th, 2007
Developed by the Journal of International Business Studies, 2007