Journal of Process Management and New Technologies defines standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the publishing process: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher.
Editors-in-Chief Responsibilities
The Editors-in-Chief of the Journal of Process Management and New Technologies conduct the first evaluation of the submitted article and decide whether it is suitable for further processing. The editor should comply with the policies established by the journal’s editorial board and with legal regulations regarding copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may consult the editorial board members or reviewers during the decision process in this regard. The paper should be evaluated solely on its scientific content and relevance, without any influence from personal characteristics, attitudes, or nationality.
In the case when there exists a real threat of the occurrence of a conflict of interest if the Editor handling a particular article, then the entire process is performed by the Editorial Board. If any member of the Editorial Board has a conflict of interest regarding some submission, then he/she should withdraw from the processing of that particular article.
Editors with an actual or potential conflict of interest shall recuse themselves from handling the manuscript and delegate editorial responsibility to another qualified editor.
To ensure transparency and easy tracking of the editorial and publishing process, and to increase the availability of published articles, the editor uses the electronic editing system ASEESTANT. The submitted articles are tested for plagiarism using the iThenticate service before peer review. If the article reveals a serious violation of scientific ethics rules involving the appropriation of other authors’ ideas and work, it will be immediately rejected. To ensure the quality and uncompromised review process, the journal applies a “double blind peer review process”.
The information about the submission is confidential and must not be revealed to anyone outside the parties involved in the editorial and publishing process. Editors may not use in their research the unpublished material from the submission without the written permission of the authors.
In the case of plagiarism being detected in an already published article, it may be corrected or retracted in accordance with the journal’s retraction policy.
Retraction processes are performed in accordance with the COPE guidelines. The article is clearly signed with the “RETRACTED” mark. Publishing of the retractions and corrections is in accordance with the requirements of CEES, the publisher of the National Citation Index.
Reviewers’ Responsibilities
Reviewers should provide a written, comprehensive, and objective review within the stipulated time, in line with academic standards. The article should be assessed regarding compliance with the aims and scope of the journal, its relevance to the considered topic, the adequacy of the used methods, the originality, contribution, and the quality of presentation.
The editor makes a decision on a particular article with the help of the peer reviewers. Besides, reviewers can help improve article quality by offering constructive suggestions. In the case when the article falls outside of the scope of the invited reviewer, or in the case when the reviewer does not have time to perform the review process adequately, he/she should exclude himself from the review process.
The articles received for publication represent the confidential documents whose content should not be disclosed to parties outside the editorial process.
Reviewers should be objective and avoid personal criticism. Their standpoints should be well-supported by scientific facts and arguments, and their suggestions should be helpful and constructive. They should be experts in the field the article elaborates on, so they can easily identify published works that should contribute to the theoretical background of the reviewed article. If the reviewer detects suspicious similarity with some published work, the editor should be alarmed.
Reviewers do not have the right to use unpublished materials disclosed in the submitted article without the written permission of the author. Information revealed during the review process is confidential and must not be used by reviewers for personal purposes.
In the case of the existence of a conflict of interest, the reviewer should not accept being a part of the review process.
Authors' Responsibilities
The authors guarantee that the article represents the original work by the stated authors, that it is not under consideration for publication or published before in any other journal. In the case of detecting the parallel submission of the same article in another journal, it will be disregarded from consideration for publishing.
The article should present the authors’ original research relevant to its aims and topic. The paper structure should be logically organized, and the research should be relevant and supported with adequate references and explanations that enable other researchers to examine and use it. The authors should cite the used publication adequately.
The authors should make the data accessible to the editors on their request. When possible, the authors should enable public access to the raw materials and retain the data for a specified period.
The authors shall ensure that all sources used in the manuscript are appropriately acknowledged and cited in accordance with accepted academic standards.
The list of authors should include those who made a significant contribution to the article preparation. The accuracy of the list of co-authors should be the responsibility of the corresponding authors. Also, the corresponding author guarantees that all co-authors approved the final version of the article and agreed with its submission. Any financial or other essential conflict of interest should be disclosed in the article by the authors. Also, authors should disclose every financial support for their research.
The author’s obligation is to immediately notify the journal editor or publisher about the serious error or inaccuracy that they discovered in the published work. In that case, the article should be corrected or retracted if the correction is impossible to perform.
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI)
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Authors. The use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools (e.g., ChatGPT or similar systems) is permitted only to improve the language, grammar, and readability of the manuscript. Such tools must not be used to generate scientific content, research data, data analyses, results, or conclusions.
Authors are required to disclose any use of GenAI tools in the submitted manuscript, specifying the tool used and the purpose of its use. Generative AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors, as they cannot assume responsibility for the originality, accuracy, or integrity of scholarly work. Full responsibility for the content of the manuscript remains with the human authors.
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers. Reviewers must preserve the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts to the Journal of Process Management and New Technologies and must not upload unpublished manuscripts or any confidential editorial materials to publicly available GenAI systems. Peer-review reports must remain the result of independent human judgement and responsibility.
Research Data Availability
Authors are encouraged to make research data available whenever possible. Editors may request access to the underlying data during the editorial process for verification purposes. If data cannot be shared due to ethical or legal restrictions, the reasons should be clearly stated.
Dealing With Unethical Behavior
If unethical behavior is detected, the Editors-in-Chief and/or the Editorial Office should be notified as soon as possible so they can initiate an investigation. All the data collected during the investigation is confidential. The accused party will have the opportunity to defend itself. The misconduct could be classified as minor or major. The Editorial Office addresses unethical behavior in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Research misconduct includes plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, data falsification, image manipulation, inappropriate authorship attribution, and citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation and paper mill activities. Confirmed misconduct may result in rejection or retraction of the manuscript and notification of the relevant institution when appropriate.
Appeals Procedure
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written request to the Editors-in-Chief. Appeals will be reviewed by members of the Editorial Board who were not involved in the original decision. The decision after the appeal process shall be final.