About the Journal
FOCUS AND SCOPE
International Review of Management and Marketing (IRMM) is the international academic journal, and is a double-blind, peer-reviewed academic journal publishing high quality conceptual and measure development articles in the areas of management, marketing, business and related disciplines. The journal has a worldwide audience. The journal's goal is to stimulate the development of management, marketing, business and related disciplines theory worldwide by publishing interesting articles in a highly readable format.
The journal is published bimonthly (6 issues per year) and covers a wide variety of topics including (but not limited to):
|
Advertising |
International Business |
Price StrategiesProject Management |
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
All manuscripts submitted to this journal must follow focus and scope, and author guidelines of this journal. The submitted manuscripts must address scientific merit or novelty appropriate to the focus and scope. The Editor–in–Chief has the right to reject articles that do not meet the theme or the Guidance for Authors requirements. All manuscripts must be free from plagiarism content. All authors are suggested to use plagiarism detection software to do the similarity checking. Editors check the plagiarism detection of articles in this journal by using iThenticate software.
The research article submitted to this journal will be peer–reviewed with double–blind review. Peer Review Statement Quality is ensured by rigorous and integrity, anonymous peer evaluation of each main paper by three independent referees. The reviewers give scientific valuable comments improving the contents of the manuscript.
The final decision of articles acceptance will be made by the Editor, on behalf of the Editorial Board according to the reviewer's comments. Publication of accepted articles including the sequence of published articles will be made by Editor–in–Chief by considering the sequence of accepted date and geographical distribution of authors as well as a thematic issue.
Review Outcomes: Utilizing feedback from the peer review process, the Editor will make a final publication decision. The review process will take approximately 4 to 12 weeks. Decisions categories include,
- Reject: Rejected manuscripts will not be published and authors will not have the opportunity to resubmit a revised version of the manuscript to IRMM.
- Resubmit for Review: The submission needs to be re–worked, but with significant changes, may be accepted. However, It will require a second round of review.
- Accept with Revisions: Manuscripts receiving an accept-pending-revisions decision will be published in IRMM under the condition that minor/major modifications are made. Revisions will be reviewed by an editor to ensure necessary updates are made prior to publication.
- Accept: Accepted manuscripts will be published in the current form with no further modifications required.
After reviewing, all the corresponding information is sent to the author. In one or two weeks, the author finalizes the article and sends the final version of it to the editors’ office. If after this period the article is not returned (or the editorial board is not informed about any delay) – the article is refused.
PUBLICATION FREQUENCY
The journal is published Bimonthly (6 issues per year: January, March, May, July, September, November).
OPEN ACCESS POLICY
This journal provides immediate OPEN ACCESS to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. All articles published by IRMM are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. This means that everyone has free and unlimited access to the full-text of all articles published.
Open Access business model is adopted by IRMM. Thus, IRMM follows the APC publishing model, whereby accepted articles have to pay an Article Processing Charge (APC) before they are published.
ARCHIVING
This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...
PUBLICATION ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE
International Review of Management and Marketing (IRMM) is committed to the academic community and the lay world in ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles in publication. Plagiarism is strictly forbidden and papers found to be plagiarized will be removed or not published in the International Review of Management and Marketing. Thus, all received papers are checked with "Ithenticate Plagiarism Detection Software Program" (www.ithenticate.com ) for plagiarism before review process. While signing the publication agreement the author(s) have to warrant that the article and associated materials are original and it does not infringe the copyright of anyone. Also the authors have to warrant that there was a full consensus of all the authors and it was neither submitted nor published previously. In respect of the COPE's Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers (for more information see COPE), the publication ethics of the IRMM includes the most important ethical standards for involved parties including authors, editors and peer reviewers. Any potential or emerging conflicts of interests are to be prevented by IRMM and - in case of deviations therefrom - to be reported directly to the editor.
Editors, authors, and reviewers, within the IRMM, are to be fully committed to good publication practice and accept the responsibility for fulfilling the following duties and responsibilities, as set by the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. As part of the Core Practices, COPE has written guidelines on the http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.
Section A: Publication and authorship
- All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper.
- Review process are blind peer review.
- The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language.
- The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
- If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
- Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
- The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
Section B: Authors’ responsibilities
- Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
- Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
- Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
- Authors must participate in the peer review process.
- Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
- All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
- Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
- Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
- Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
- Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.
Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities
- Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
- Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author
- Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
- Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
- Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
- Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Section D: Editors’ responsibilities
- Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
- Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
- Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
- Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
- Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
- Editors should have a clear picture of a research’s funding sources.
- Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers’ importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication’s scope.
- Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
- Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
- Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
- Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
- Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
- Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.
- Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.
Research and Publication Ethics
All of the manuscripts should be prepared in strict observation of research and publication ethics guidelines recommended by Guidelines on Good Publication (http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines)
- Authorship And Contributorship
Authors are required to make clear of their contribution to their manuscript in cover letter. Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named as been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate coauthors are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.
- Conflict of Interest
1) The corresponding author of an article is asked to inform the Editor of the authors’ potential conflicts of interest possibly influencing their interpretation of data. A potential conflict of interest should be disclosed in the cover letter even when the authors are confident that their judgments have not been influenced in preparing the manuscript. Such conflicts may be financial support or private connections to pharmaceutical companies, political pressure from interest groups, or academic problems.
2) The editor will decide whether the information on the conflict should be included in the published paper. Before publishing such information, the editor will consult with the corresponding author. In particular, all sources of funding for a study should be explicitly stated.
- Redundant Publication and Plagiarism
1) Redundant publication is defined as “reporting (publishing or attempting to publish) substantially the same work more than once, without attribution of the original source(s)”. Characteristics of reports that are substantially similar include the following: (a) “at least one of the authors must be common to all reports (if there are no common authors, it is more likely plagiarism than redundant publication),” (b) “the subject or study populations are often the same or similar,” (c) “the methodology is typically identical or nearly so,” and (d) “the results and their interpretation generally vary little, if at all.”
2) When submitting a manuscript, authors should include a letter informing the editor of any potential overlap with other already published material or material being evaluated for publication and should also state how the manuscript submitted to IRMM differs substantially from this other material. If all or part of your sample data was previously reported, this should be mentioned in the Materials and Methods, with citation of the appropriate reference(s).
- Process for Managing Research and Publication Misconduct
When the IRMM faces suspected cases of research and publication misconduct such as a redundant (duplicate) publication, plagiarism, fabricated data, changes in authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, an ethical problem discovered with the submitted manuscript, a reviewer who has appropriated an author’s idea or data, complaints against editors, and other issues, the resolving process will follow the flowchart provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts). The editorial board will discuss the suspected cases and reach a decision.
- Handling Complaints and Appeals
The policy of the journal is primarily aimed at protecting the authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher of the journal. The process of handling complaints and appeals follows the guidelines of the Committee of Publication Ethics available from: https://publicationethics.org/appeals
- Journal Policies on Data Sharing and Reproducibility
After publication, authors are free to share their work with the obligation to mention the fact that has been first published in IRMM.
- Journal's Options For Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections
The post-publication discussion is available through the correspondence. If any readers have a concern about any articles published, they can submit a correspondence on the articles. If there founds any errors or mistakes in the article, it can be corrected through errata, corrigenda, or retraction.
It is the obligation of each author to provide prompt retractions or corrections of errors in published works. All corrections required by authors are handled by Editors. Once the update request has been approved, the paper will be updated and re-published on our website, along with the publication of a Correction.
- Journal’s Policy on Intellectual Property
IRMM requires authors to make their article open access under one of the Creative Commons Licenses in order to meet the terms of open access publication and ensure the widest possible dissemination. The Creative Commons website explains how these licenses work.
- Plagiarism and Retraction
Plagiarism is presenting someone else’s work or ideas as your own, with or without their consent, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement. Submissions containing plagiarism, in whole or part, are rejected. Thus, all received papers are checked with "Ithenticate Plagiarism Detection Software Program" (www.ithenticate.com ) for plagiarism before review process.
Reuse of text that is copied from another source must be between quotation marks and the original source must be cited. If a study's design or the manuscript's structure or language has been inspired by previous studies, these studies must be explicitly cited. If plagiarism is detected during the peer review process, the manuscript may be rejected. If plagiarism is detected after publication, we may publish a Correction or retract the paper.
We addresses the retractions, corrections or expressions of concern in line with COPE’s Guidelines available here https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines
- Ethical guidelines for the use of human participants in research
The principles given below are intended to apply to research with human participants.
Human research is research conducted with or about people, or their data or tissue. It has contributed enormously to human good. Thus, all human interaction, including the interaction involved in human research, has ethical dimensions. However, ‘ethical conduct’ is more than simply doing the right thing. It involves acting in the right spirit, out of an abiding respect and concern for one’s fellow creatures.
Research should be undertaken with a clear scientific purpose. There should be a reasonable expectation that the research will a) increase knowledge of the process underlying the evolution, development, maintenance, alteration, control, or biological significance of behavior; b) determine the replicability and generality of prior research; c) increase understanding of the species under study; or d) provide results that benefit the health or welfare of humans or other animals.
The investigator should inform the participants of all aspects of the research or intervention that might reasonably be expected to influence willingness to participate. The investigator should,normally, explain all other aspects of the research or intervention about which the participants enquire. Failure to make full disclosure prior to obtaining informed consent requires additional safeguards to protect the welfare and dignity of the participants.
Investigators have a primary responsibility to protect participants from physical and mental harm during the investigation.
When author(s) submit a research that involves human subjects, human material, human tissues, or human data, author(s) must declare that the investigations were carried out following the rules of the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975 (https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/), revised in 2013. According to point 23 of this declaration, an approval from the local institutional review board or other appropriate ethics committee must be obtained before undertaking the research to confirm the study meets national and international guidelines. As a minimum, a statement including the project identification code, date of approval, and name of the ethics committee or institutional review board must be stated in Section ‘Institutional Review Board Statement’ of the article.
Please see following links to see a more detailed information about the guideliness for the use of human participants in research:
https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_515060_smxx.pdf
https://www.apa.org/science/leadership/care/care-animal-guidelines.pdf
https://www.apa.org/science/leadership/care/guidelines
https://www.animalethics.org.au/three-rs
https://www.eara.eu/animal-research-law
Sources:
- ELSEVIER: Elsevier publishing ethics resource kit
- COPE: Responsible research publication: international standards for authors
- COPE: Cope’s new code of conduct
- COPE: Responsible research publication: International standards for editors
- COPE: Cope short guide to ethical editing for new editors
- COPE: Cope ethical guidelines for peer reviewers
- COPE: Code of conduct for journal publishers
