Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Our Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement is based on the guidelines for journal editors developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE):

Manuscripts submitted to this Journal are evaluated entirely on the basis of their scientific content. All possible measures are taken to uphold the highest standards of publication ethics and to prevent malpractices. Authors who submit papers to our Journal attest that their work is original and unpublished and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. In addition, authors confirm that their paper is their own original work that has not been copied or plagiarized, in whole or in part, from other works and if the authors have used the works of others the same has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Duties / Responsibilities of the Editor / Associate Editor:

The Editorial Team of the JCMT, comprising the Members of Editorial Board / Advisory Board is responsible for taking a decision as to which of the articles submitted to the Journal are to be published. The Editor has complete discretion to reject/accept an article. The Editorial Team may confer/deliberate with reviewers in arriving at its decisions. The evaluation of manuscripts is made on the basis of their scholarly and intellectual content without having regard to the nature of the authors or the institution including gender, race, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. The Journal follows a policy of fair play in its editorial evaluation. The Editor is expected to exercise caution and ensure that he has no conflict of interest with respect to the articles he accepts / rejects. The Editor and the associate editor follow strict confidentiality and are required not to disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers and the publisher. Authors are encouraged to correct the errors which are found during the process of review while preserving the anonymity of the reviewers.

Duties / Responsibilities of Reviewers:

Editorial decisions are based on peer review. The reviewers are expected to maintain absolute confidentiality with regard to the contents of manuscripts. The reviews are to be conducted objectively and the referees are expected to express their views clearly with supporting reasons. The reviewers should have no conflict of interest with the authors and the subject matter of the research. The reviewers are required to identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any observation or argument which has been previously reported should also be accompanied along with the relevant citation. Similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and any other published paper of which the reviewer may have personal knowledge, may also be brought to the attention of the Editor. The information or ideas obtained through peer review are of a privileged nature and must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationship with any of authors or institutions connected to the papers.

Duties/Responsibilities of the Authors:

Authors are required to present an accurate account of the original research work and also an objective discussion of its significance. The paper should contain sufficient details of the literature and references. It is expected that all the authors have significantly contributed to the research. Fraudulent and knowingly made inaccurate statement constitutes unethical behavior and would be unacceptable. Authors are required to ensure that the submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere, and if the authors have used the work of others the same has been appropriately cited or quoted. Applicable copyright laws and conventions are required to be followed. Copyright materials should be reproduced only with permission and due acknowledgement. Authors are not expected to submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently would constitute unethical practice and would be unacceptable. Proper acknowledgement of the work of others must always be made. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the paper which is submitted for publication. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects in the development of the paper should also be acknowledged. The corresponding author is required to ensure that all co-authors are included in the paper, and that the co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. All sources of financial support should also be disclosed. Upon discovery of any significant error in the published work, it is the responsibility of the authors to promptly notify the Editor and cooperate in the retraction or correction of the paper.

(This PEMS is adopted by The Association for Business Education and Entrepreneurship Development, Pune- SSK Busilink, its publication arm and Indian Journals.com, the co-publishers for the Journal of Commerce and Management Thought).

Peer Review Policy Statement

The Journal of Commerce and Management Thought employs double blind review process, where both the reviewer and author remain anonymous throughout the process.

The Process: Reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise or subject. Our panel of reviewers is constantly being updated.

Reviewers then evaluate the manuscript on following aspects: 1) Originality or otherwise 2) Methodology 3) Follows appropriate guidelines given 4) Results clearly presented with conclusions or findings 5) Correct references.

Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is a part of the editorial process.

Duration: Generally, the manuscript will be reviewed within 3 to 4 weeks’ time. In case of delay or contradiction, further expert opinion will be sought. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the initial referees within 1 to 2 weeks. Reviewers may request more than one revision of a manuscript.

Decision: A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be communicated to the author along with any recommendation (s) made by the reviewers, and may include comments by the reviewers.

Final Decision: Reviewers advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.