Policies:
Journal Policy:
When you submit a paper to IRJEMS, we'll believe it hasn't been published or submitted anywhere else. If you have previously published or submitted similar or related material, you must provide a copy of it with your manuscript submission. While your manuscript is being reviewed at IRJEMS, you may not submit it elsewhere. Each author's principal affiliation should be the institution where they did the majority of their work. If an author has since moved, the current address should be included as well. Please supply a documented statement of consent from everyone who is quoted if the manuscript includes personal conversations. It is allowed to obtain permission by email. Even after a manuscript has been approved, we have the right to reject it if it becomes clear that there are major issues with its research content or that our publishing regulations have been broken.
Open Access Policy:
All papers will be released under a Creative Commons CC BY NC ND licence, making them open access. Because there are no restrictions to access, they will enjoy the widest possible distribution. This licence allows readers to share and reuse the article, but it always asks them to give full acknowledgement to the authors and the original publication. Open access policies can be found in the journal's policies.
License Policy:
International Research Journal of Economics and Management Studies is a Gold Open Access Journal that follows a set of fair policies for the welfare of the contributors and the Journal itself. Any part of the article or content published in IRJEMS shall be re-used or reproduced only with compliance to the policies and Licensing procedure of IRJEMS after getting prior permission from the Journal.
IRJEMS is under an attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives4.0 international (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). This license allows the user to freely share (reuse, distribute, transmit) and adopt the contribution only for Non-Commercial purposes, as long as the author is properly attributed.
Reviewer Policy:
Peer review is essentially a quality control technique for journal publication. It is a procedure in which specialists assess scholarly works with the goal of ensuring that published science is of high quality. Peer reviewers, on the other hand, do not make the final decision on whether or not to accept or reject publications. They can just provide a recommendation. Journal editors or the journal's editorial board have sole decision-making authority in peer-reviewed journals. Indeed, the journal editor is seen as a key player in the decision-making process.
Process of making decisions in IRJEMS
A journal editor typically screens a manuscript once it is submitted to a journal and determines whether or
not to send it for full peer review. The manuscript is only sent to one or more peer reviewers after passing
the initial screening. Finally, the peer reviewers' reports are considered by journal editors or the editorial
board, who make the final decision on whether to approve or reject the paper for publication.
IRJEMS Every year, editors review hundreds of manuscripts. The cover letter is one of the first things editors
will look at, and if the study does not seem fascinating enough, they may not read any further. As a result,
authors must craft a well-written cover letter that highlights the significance and strength of their study while
also demonstrating why the publication is a suitable fit for the journal.
Editors will then review the abstract, as well as the introduction, figures and tables, and other portions of the
paper, to see if the manuscript meets their quality standards.
Taking on professional responsibilities
Authors who have benefited from peer review might consider taking on the role of peer reviewer as part of their professional obligations. Some publications require a formal appointment process to join the review panel, and others require specific expertise; anyone interested in becoming a reviewer should seek for the journal's peer review criteria and complete any requirements listed. To acquire the best evaluations possible, editors must match reviewers with the extent of the content in a submission. Potential reviewers should supply journals with correct personal and professional information, as well as verified and accurate contact information, that reflects their competence.
Interests at odds
Make a list of any potential competing or conflicting interests. If you're not sure if you have a competing interest that would restrict you from evaluating, bring it up. Personal, economical, intellectual, professional, political, or religious conflicts might arise. You should not accept to review if you are currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors, or if you have been mentors, mentees, close collaborators, or joint grant holders within the last three years. Furthermore, you should not agree to evaluate a manuscript only to see it, with no intention of writing a review, or agree to review a manuscript that is substantially similar to one you are working on or that is being considered by another journal.
Timeliness
Even if you are unable to complete the review, it is polite to respond to a peer review invitation within a fair time frame. If you believe you are qualified to judge a manuscript, you should agree to review it only if you are able to complete it within the specified or mutually agreed-upon time frame. If your circumstances change and you are unable to fulfil your initial agreement or require an extension, please notify the journal as soon as possible. If you are unable to review, it is helpful to give recommendations for other reviewers, based on their competence and free of any personal bias or expectation that the paper would receive a specific outcome (either positive or negative).
CONDUCTING A REVIEW
The first steps
Read the paper, supplementary data files, and auxiliary information thoroughly, contacting the journal if anything is unclear, and requesting any missing or incomplete elements. Without the permission of the journal, do not contact the authors directly.Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring), without first obtaining permission from the journal.
Suspicion of unethical behaviour
For example, you might be concerned that there was misbehaviour during the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, or you might detect a significant similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published piece. Contact the editor directly if you have any of these or other ethical issues; do not try to investigate on your own. It is OK to work with the journal in confidence, but not to personally investigate unless the journal requests additional information or recommendations.
Peer review's transferability
Publishers may have regulations in place that prohibit peer reviews from being transferred to other journals in their portfolio (sometimes referred to as portable or cascading peer review). If the journal requires it, reviewers may be requested to consent to the transfer of their reviews. If you are asked to assess a manuscript that has been rejected by one journal and then submitted to another, you should be prepared to review it again because it may have changed between the two submissions and the journal's criteria for evaluation and acceptance may be different. It may be good to give your initial evaluation for the new journal (with permission from the original journal), indicating that you had previously examined the submission and highlighting any changes, in the interests of transparency and efficiency.
Plagiarism Policy:
Plagiarism is the dishonest representation of someone else's work as one's own.
Plagiarism occurs when writers, presenters, researchers, whether students or professionals — portray all or part of another person's work as if it were their own without proper acknowledgement. Plagiarism is a significant infraction because it violates the trust and honesty requirements that are necessary for academic work in an ethical community. Furthermore, plagiarism undermines the fundamental goals of higher education by short-circuiting the learning processes of inquiry, reflection, and communication.
Plagiarism can manifest itself in a variety of ways, including but not limited to:
Using another writer's exact words without citation or quote marks in a section of a paper (or block indentation in the case of longer quotations).
Cutting and pasting information from the Internet or other electronic sources without citing sources.
Using another writer's paraphrased or summarised notion without crediting the source.
Accepting excessive help from another individual in creating a paper without disclosing the type and
amount of that collaboration to readers.
Submitting for credit a complete or section of a paper produced by someone else, regardless of
whether the document was purchased, freely given, stolen, obtained, or gained through other means.
Duplicate submission is also a breach of academic integrity because each assignment assumes that
new investigation and effort will result in new learning, and submitting a paper that has already
been written for another occasion undermines this learning.
Editors may deal with incidents of plagiarism in a variety of ways, acknowledging that students may
commit plagiarism accidentally because they are unfamiliar with the rules of quotation, reference, and
recognition.
When a case of plagiarism arises not from a lack of knowledge of norms, but from activities in which the
writer misleads the Editor about the sources of words or ideas, or attempts to complete an assignment
without doing all of the required work, the usual consequence is a failure in the acceptance.
All submissions are expected to be below 15% plagiarism. IRJEMS is Using Turnitin and Authenticate to find
the duplications.