Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Journal of Accounting, Finance & Management Strategy
























































































Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

The Journal of Accounting, Finance & Management Strategy (JAFMS) is committed to maintain academic ethics and quality standard of publication. The authors, editors, and reviewers are required to follow general standards of ethical behaviors.


Duties of Editors

With regard to editor duties, such as constantly enhancing the quality and integrity of this journal, striving to needs of authors and audiences, encouraging academic debate, and others, the editors accept responsibility to apply best will and practice to cope with the following duties:

Editorial Board

Editorial board members will be produced from recognized experts in relative area. The editor is going to provide full names and affiliations of the members as well as updated contact information for the editorial office on the journal website.

Publication decisions

The Editor-in-Chief should be responsible for deciding the manuscript submitted to this journal would be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to authors and readers must always drive such decisions. The Editor-in-Chief may be guided by the journal’s editorial board polices and constrained by such legal requirements, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief is able to confer with other editors, reviewers as well as referees in making this decision.

Peer-review process

Manuscripts submitted for possible publication are subjected to double-blind and peer-review process. Manuscripts are reviewed by editors firstly. The Editor-in-Chief can reject it out of hand either it is not dealing with the subject matter for this journal or it is manifestly of a low quality so that manuscript cannot be considered at all. Manuscripts that are found suitable for review are then sent to two referees in the relative area of that article. Referees of a manuscript are unknown each other. Referees are asked to classify the article as publishable straightway, publishable with amendments and improvements, or not publishable. The results of referees’ evaluations usually involve an explicit suggestion of what to do with the article. Referees’ comments are then seen by the authors.

Fair play

Editor-in-Chief should assess the academic advantage of submitted articles exclusively without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. The decision of Editor-in-Chief to accept or reject a manuscript for publication ought to base only on the paper´s importance, originality and clarity, as well as the study´s relevance to the purpose of this journal.


Editors and editorial board members cannot reveal any information on a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials revealed in a submitted article will not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained by means of peer-review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal merit. Editors will recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering researches in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships and connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.

Procedures for dealing with unethical behavior

The editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. This measures will generally comprise contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also comprise further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, depending on the misconduct seriousness.

Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations. Serious misconduct might require application of one or more following measures:

• Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a                    misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.

• A formal notice for detailing the misconduct.

• Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from this journal.

• Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined            period.


Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of original manuscripts ought to present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. In Manuscript, the underlying data should be indicated accurately. The manuscript ought to contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. It’s unacceptable scenario on fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial “opinion” works should be clearly identified as such.

Data access and retention 

Authors may be asked to provide the raw materials or data of their research together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. Furthermore, authors should ensure accessibility of such materials or data to other professionals or audiences for at least 10 years after publication, provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.

Originality and plagiarism

The authors have used the work and/or words from other study, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted and ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original studies. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be quoted. That have many categories in plagiarism issue, from “passing off” another’s manuscript as the author’s own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted through other studies. Plagiarism in all is categories constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication 

In general, an author should not publish the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently composes unethical publishing behaviour. Basically, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

Authorship of the paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest 

All authors should reveal the financial information or other substantive conflict of interest in their article that might be construed to influence the results or explanation of their article. All sources of financial support for the research article should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed involve consultancies, employment, honoraria, stock ownership, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Readers should be informed about who has funded research and on the role of the funders in the research.


Duties of Reviewers


Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer-review process assists the editors in making editorial decisions and help the author in enhancing their article quality through the editorial communications with the authors. The Peer-review process is an essential component of formal scholarly communication. Authors who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.


Any invited expert who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.


Any submitted articles received for review or commentary that have to be treated as private and confidential documents. They must not be discussed or shown with others except as authorized via the editor.

Standards of objectivity

The objective evaluation on a research report is critical factor in review process. Personal criticism of the author is unsuitable. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources

Referees should identify the relevant published research that has not been cited through the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been reported should be accompanied via the relevant citation. A reviewer has to let the editor's attention in any substantial similarity or overlap between the submitted manuscript and any other published research of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials or raw data disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer´s report without the author’s written consent. The relevant data of privileged information or ideas via peer review must be kept private and confidential as well as not used for personal advantage. Reviewers must not consider 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.