Code of Ethics

The credibility and success of a scientific journal depend on the pre-review evaluation system, crucial for attracting good authors and improving the quality of disseminated knowledge. The Journal of Entrepreneurial Researchers (JER) employs scientific arbitration to ensure transparency and trust between editors and authors. JER is exclusively committed to knowledge, independent of political and economic influences.

This code defines ethical principles adopted by JER, inspired by international guidelines. Good practices aim to address ethical issues, guiding all parties involved in the publication process at JER.

JER inspires this code in the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics COPE; Declaration of Helsinki WMA; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors ICMJE; Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments ARRIVE. This code defines the responsibilities of all parties involved in the act of publishing in JER.

Duties and Responsibilities

1. Ethical and Moral Values that Guide JER—General Duties and Responsibilities of JER

1.1. JER and Ponteditora are responsible for implementing the Code of Ethics and good practices in relation to all manuscripts received and material published in the journal. This means that the Scientific Council (SC) of JER must:

  • support freedom of expression.
  • seek to meet the needs of readers and authors.
  • adopt procedures that guarantee the quality of the published material.
  • be available to publish corrections, clarifications, and apologize, when justified.

JER’s Good Practices include:

  1. encouraging and being aware of peer-reviewed research and publish and re-evaluate the journal's processes in the light of new guidelines;
  2. actively listening to the opinions of authors, readers, reviewers and members of the SC on ways to improve the journal’s editorial procedures;
  3. supporting training initiatives in the field of conduct and ethics of research and publication;
  4. evaluating the effects of the journal’s policies on the behavior of authors and reviewers and review them, whenever necessary, encouraging responsible behavior and discouraging inappropriate conduct.

2. Relationship of JER with the Readers

2.1. JER must inform about the sources of funding for research for published works.

JER’s Good Practices include:

  1. ensuring that all publications are reviewed by qualified reviewers;
  2. establishing processes that encourage the rigor, integrity, and clarity of the investigation;
  3. adopting criteria for attribution of authorship that promote good practices, that is, make it clear who did the work, discouraging misconduct (e.g., ghost authors);
  4. informing about the measures taken to ensure that the submissions of works proposed by members of the journal or the SC are evaluated objectively and impartially.

3. Relationship of JER with the Authors

3.1. JER’s decisions regarding the approval/rejection of a manuscript for publication are based on the importance of the research work, its originality and clarity, and the validity of the study, as well as its relevance to the journal.

3.2. The SC of JER does not reverse the approval decisions for submissions, unless there are some serious problems with the submission.

3.3. Unless serious problems are identified, the SC should not override publication decisions made by the Editor-in-Chief.

3.4. A description of the peer review process is available and JER justifies any major deviations that occur in the process.

3.5. The authors are allowed to appeal to the Editor-in-Chief or the management against an opinion unfavorable to the publication, presenting arguments. To ensure fairness, internal audits are provided for the reviewers’ reports, regardless of the existence of resources. In this context, additional clarifications may be requested from reviewers, even in favorable decisions.

3.6. Authors can, if they so choose, know who the reviewers of their work were. Then, they can assess the competence of the reviewers and, if necessary, the existence of conflicts of interest that may affect the evaluation.

3.7. JER publishes Guidelines for Authors on all aspects that they should attend to.

JER’s Good Practices include:

  1. regularly reviewing the instructions for authors.
  2. publishing relevant conflicts of interest for all authors and publishing corrections if conflicts of interest are identified after publication.
  3. ensuring that reviewers are chosen on the basis of academic training, experience and professional competence, which clearly demonstrate the skills to review the submitted manuscripts.
  4. respecting the requests of the authors about people who should not review their submission, if they are well-founded and practicable.
  5. disseminating information about how the journal deals with suspected cases of misconduct.
  6. publishing the dates for submission and approval of the manuscripts.

4. Relationship of JER with the Reviewers

4.1. Reviewers are required to thoroughly review all manuscripts and be free from any prejudice. The review form should highlight the aspects that underlie the decision, and, in the event of an opinion unfavorable to the publication of the manuscript (rejection), highlight the weaknesses of the text and suggest ways to bridge them in future submissions.

4.2. JER provides guidance to reviewers about what is expected of them, including the need to deal confidentially with the submitted material.

4.3. JER asks reviewers to indicate potential conflicts of interest before an agreement for the review of an article is established. Despite a previous selection of reviewers, they can always decline the invitation to evaluate the manuscript, if they feel, for any reason, unable to revise the text.

4.4. JER has systems to guarantee the protection of the identity of the reviewers.

JER’s Good Practices include:

  1. encouraging comments on the originality of submissions and paying attention to redundant publication and plagiarism.
  2. encouraging comments on ethical issues, as well as research and publication misconduct that arises in submissions.
  3. sending reviewers’ comments to authors, unless they contain offensive or unfounded observations.
  4. publicly acknowledging the reviewers’ contribution to the journal.
  5. monitoring the performance of the peer review and taking steps to ensure its high standard and search to obtain, from its reviewers, a commitment to the fulfillment of the review deadlines.
  6. developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating it based on their performance. Annually, JER analyzes the average review deadlines.
  7. ensuring that the reviewers’ database reflects the journal’s profile and, whenever necessary, adding new members.
  8. using a wide range of sources to identify potential new reviewers.
  9. ensuring that reviews contribute to increasing the quality of publications, helping to qualitatively differentiate JER.

5. Relationship of JER with the Members of the SC

5.1. JER provides new members of the SC with guidelines on their roles and must keep up-to-date with new revision policies and developments.

JER’s Good Practices include:

  1. maintaining policies and procedures that guarantee impartiality in dealing with submissions.
  2. identifying duly qualified people for the SC who can actively contribute to the development of the journal.
  3. regularly reviewing the composition of the SC.
  4. periodic consultations with members of the SC on the operation of the journal, informing them of any changes in editorial policy and identifying future challenges.
  5. providing guidance to SC members on their roles and duties, which may include:
    • support and promotion of the journal.
    • looking for good works (e.g., from summaries of scientific meetings);
    • review of submissions to the journal.
    • approval of requests to write editorials, reviews, and comments on articles in one's area of expertise.
    • participation and contribution to the meetings of the SC.

6. Relationship of JER with Ponteditora, as the Entity that Owns the Journal

6.1. The relationship between JER’s SC and Ponteditora is based on the principle of editorial independence.

6.2. The Editor-in-Chief decides which manuscripts to publish based on their quality and suitability for the journal, without interference from Ponteditora and those responsible for them.

JER’s Good Practices include:

  1. establishing mechanisms to deal with disagreements between the SC and Ponteditora.
  2. communicating regularly with Ponteditora, informing about the journal’s results, successes and issues.

7. Editorial and Peer Review Processes

The purpose of the assessment is to help authors improve the quality of their work by providing constructive and timely assessments prepared by experienced academics. JER considers the evaluation process as a fundamental step for the improvement of the manuscripts. For this reason, the reviewers of JER are encouraged to present, in addition to the opinion on publication, suggestions for improvement regarding the content and form of the text.

The evaluation process of manuscripts submitted to JER consists of two stages. The first is a preliminary evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief and the Assistant Editors, examining the adequacy of the work for the journal’s editorial line and makes the preliminary evaluation (Desk Review). The second is the review itself, which encompasses three distinct peer review systems:

  • Single-blind peer review: anonymous reviewer/disclosed author.
  • Double-blind peer review: anonymous reviewer/anonymous author.
  • Open peer review: disclosed reviewer/disclosed author.

Authors designate the preferred review model during or following manuscript submission. In the absence of a specified preference, the default protocol is a double-blind peer review process.

7.1. JER strives to ensure that the peer reviews are fair, impartial, and timely.

7.2. JER has systems in place to ensure that the submitted material remains confidential while it is under review.

JER’s Good Practices include:

  1. encouraging appropriate training for people involved in the editorial process (including themselves) and ensuring that they are properly informed about the latest guidelines and recommendations regarding the peer reviews and the management of journals.
  2. staying informed about the peer review processes and their technological advances.
  3. adopting the methods of the peer reviews most suitable for the journal and for the scientific and academic community.
  4. periodically reviewing peer review practices in order to improve them.

8. Quality Assurance

8.1. JER’s SC takes all necessary measures to guarantee the quality of the material it publishes.

JER’s Good Practices include:

  1. determining procedures and systems for detecting falsified data (e.g., plagiarism). The review primarily considers the scientific quality of the text, focusing on the following aspects:
    • Contemporaneity of the topic.
    • Originality of the work.
    • Relevance and theoretical consistency of the text for the development of the area of knowledge.
    • Quality of the theoretical framework used.
    • Quality of writing and organization of the text.
    • Contribution of work to administrative knowledge and/or administrative action in organizations.
    • Methodology used: property, quality, level of sophistication.
    • Quality of data analysis and discussion (if applicable).
    • Conclusions: achievement, foundation, and consistency.
  2. basing decisions about the journal’s style standards on relevant evidence to increase the quality of communication (e.g., adopting structured abstracts), and not simply on aesthetic foundations or personal preferences.

9. Protection of Individual Data

9.1. JER guarantees the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research interactions.

JER’s Good Practices include:

  1. disclosing its policy of publishing individual data (e.g., personal details or identifiable images) and, whenever necessary, explaining it clearly to the authors.

10. Encourage Research Ethics

10.1. JER seeks to ensure that published research is conducted in accordance with internationally accepted guidelines (COPE; WMA; ICMJE; ARRIVE).

10.2. Authors are required to comply with the best ethical practices in research and publications. JER promotes Good Practices in accordance with the COPE international standards for authors. For further details, it is suggested that the authors consult the Guidelines for Authors.

10.3 The authors must declare all relevant financial/non-financial or personal interests for consideration during manuscript submission. The author may use the form made available by ICMJE to facilitate and standardize author disclosures. After completion, it should be submitted along with the manuscript. If the manuscript is published, this information will be communicated in a statement in the published article. For further details it is suggested that the authors consult the Guidelines for Authors.

10.4 The reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interests when submitting their review report. They should inform the editor when reviews are requested and, if necessary, disqualify themselves from involvement in the evaluation of the manuscript. For further details, it is suggested that the authors consult the Guidelines for Authors.

10.5 The editors who have conflicts of interest or relationships that pose potential conflicts related to the papers under consideration should refrain from editorial decisions and pass them on to another colleague. For further details, it is suggested that the authors consult the Guidelines for Authors.

10.6. JER seeks to guarantee that all research has been approved by an appropriate body, wherever relevant and appropriate. However, JER recognizes that such approval does not guarantee that research is ethical.

JER’s Good Practices include:

  1. requesting evidence of ethical approval of the research and asking authors about ethical aspects if concerns are raised or clarification is needed. For further details, please consult the Guidelines for Authors.

11. Ensure the Integrity of the Academic Record

11.1. Errors and inaccurate or misleading statements are promptly corrected.

JER’s Good Practices include:

  1. ensuring that published texts are archived securely (e.g., via permanent online repositories).
  2. having an active system to give authors the opportunity to make original texts free of charge.

12. Encourage Debate

12.1. JER encourages and is willing to consider convincing criticisms of the published work;

12.2. The authors of the criticized material have the opportunity to respond;

12.3. Studies that report negative results are not excluded.

JER’s Good Practices include:

  1. opening to research that challenges works already published in the journal;
  2. responding promptly to complaints.

13. Article Retraction

JER values research integrity and strives to maintain high standards of ethical conduct and quality in all its publications. We recognize that, in some circumstances, it may be necessary to reconsider the publication of an article that was previously accepted and published. Article retraction is a serious measure and is handled with utmost diligence to uphold the integrity of scientific literature.

13.1. Conditions for Retraction:

The retraction of an article may be considered in situations that include, but are not limited to, substantial error, plagiarism, data manipulation, research ethics violations, or other serious irregularities that compromise the validity and reliability of the article.

13.2. Retraction Procedure:

When a retraction request is received or when serious issues are identified in a published article, JER will conduct a careful assessment of the situation. This will involve analyzing the presented evidence, consulting with relevant experts, and considering the policies and guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other relevant organizations.

13.3. Transparent Process:

The decision to retract an article is communicated transparently to all parties involved, including the authors of the article, reviewers, members of the Scientific Board, and readers. The specific reason for retraction will be thoroughly explained, and all stakeholders will be informed about the steps taken to ensure the correctness and transparency of the process.

13.4. Corrections and Amendments:

In some cases, minor errors or issues that do not compromise the overall validity of the article can be corrected through amendments or retractions. These corrections will be clearly communicated to the reader, maintaining transparency and honesty in the scientific record.

JER’s Good Practices include:

  1. promoting ethical conduct in research and publication and actively works to maintain the integrity of its journal;
  2. addressing any concerns regarding the integrity of published articles with the seriousness and responsibility required to ensure the continued trust of our readers and authors.

14. Policies Regarding Research Ethics for Studies Involving the Participation Of Vulnerable Populations

14.1. Informed Consent:

Researchers must obtain informed consent from all participants or their legally authorized representatives before their inclusion in the study. In the case of vulnerable populations such as minors, individuals with cognitive impairments, or those unable to provide consent, consent must be obtained from their legal guardians or next of kin.

14.2. Protection of Privacy and Confidentiality:

Researchers must ensure the confidentiality of participants' personal information and data collected during the study. Identifying information should be anonymized or pseudonymized whenever possible to protect participants' privacy.

14.3. Minimization of Harm:

Researchers should minimize the risks of harm to participants, both physical and psychological. Studies involving vulnerable populations should be designed in a way that prioritizes the safety and well-being of participants.

14.4. Beneficence:

Research involving vulnerable populations should aim to maximize the potential benefits to participants and minimize potential harm. The potential benefits of the research should outweigh any risks involved.

14.5. Respect for Autonomy:

Researchers must respect the autonomy and decision-making capacity of participants, taking into consideration their ability to understand and consent to participate in the study.

14.6. Community Engagement and Consultation:

Researchers should engage with the communities from which participants are drawn to ensure that the research is culturally appropriate and sensitive to their needs and concerns.

14.7. Special Protections for Specific Vulnerable Groups:

Special provisions may be necessary for certain vulnerable populations, such as children, prisoners, pregnant women, individuals with disabilities, or those with diminished decision-making capacity. Researchers should adhere to additional guidelines and regulations specific to these populations.

14.8. Independent Ethics Review:

Research involving vulnerable populations should undergo rigorous ethical review to ensure compliance with ethical standards and regulatory requirements.

14.9. Transparency and Accountability:

Researchers should be transparent about their methods, procedures, and potential conflicts of interest. They should also be accountable for adhering to ethical standards throughout the research process.

14.10. Reporting of Adverse Events:

Researchers should promptly report any adverse events or unanticipated problems encountered during the study to the appropriate authorities and take appropriate measures to mitigate harm.

14.11. Continuing Oversight and Monitoring:

Ongoing oversight and monitoring of research involving vulnerable populations should be conducted to ensure compliance with ethical standards and regulatory requirements throughout the duration of the study.

14.12. Training and Education:

Researchers and personnel involved in the study should receive appropriate training in research ethics, cultural sensitivity, and the specific ethical considerations relevant to working with vulnerable populations.