Journal of Advanced Research in Business Law and Technology Management

Editorial Policy

Peer-Review Process

Conflict of Interest

Guidelines for Editors

Guidelines for Reviewers

Publishing Ethics

Corrections and Retractions

Plagiarism Policy

Misconduct Allegation Policy

Peer-Review Process

The critical evaluation of articles submitted to journals by specialists who are typically not on the editorial staff is known as the peer-review process. The reviewer evaluates the paper based on its quality, validity, originality, and adherence to proper procedures. Journal of Advanced Research in Business Law and Technology Management (JoARBLTM) follows the Committee on Publication Ethics' (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers policy.

Two or more reviewers are assigned to articles that satisfy the minimum requirements. Peer-review is double-blind, meaning that neither the reviewers' nor the authors' identities are disclosed to each other.

The initial step for a newly submitted manuscript is the plagiarism check. The next step is for the editors to screen the manuscript; if they determine that it is not original, of insufficient quality, or outside the purpose and scope of JoARBLTM, they may reject it.

The minimum number of requirements for an article is met and it is assigned to two or more reviewers. A reviewer has fifteen days to offer his comments on a manuscript. The author receives reviewers' comments on the paper after it has been evaluated. The author sends the revised file to the reviewer once more. Satisfaction of the reviewers and editor is a must before acceptance of the paper for publication.   

Conflict of Interest

A piece of writing's resilience to criticism and public confidence partly depends on how well conflicts of interest are handled during the writing, editing, and peer-review stages. A conflict of interest arises when authors, reviewers, or editors have financial or personal ties that unduly influence (bias) their work. These connections are sometimes known as competing loyalties, competing interests, or dual commitments. The possible impact of these links on judgment ranges from negligible to substantial. In relationships, there aren't always real conflicts of interest. Even if individuals believe that their relationship has no bearing on their capacity to make scientific decisions, they may nonetheless be in a conflict of interest. The conflicts of interest that are most likely to harm the standing of JoARBLTM, the authors, and the field of academics itself are those with financial ties because they are the easiest to identify. Employment, consulting, stock ownership, honoraria, and compensated expert testimony are a few examples of these connections. However, there are more factors that could lead to conflict, such as strained personal ties, competitiveness in the classroom, and intense intellectual curiosity.

In this sense, disclosure of such relationships is especially important, since it can be more challenging to detect bias in editorials and review articles than in reports of original research. Editors of JoARBLTM may form their conclusions depending on the information provided in financial interest and conflict of interest disclosures.

Guidelines for Editors

The person in charge of overseeing an academic journal's manuscript publication procedure is called a journal editor. Editors decide which article should be published and which should be rejected. They manage the review process and make sure that the publications add to the standard of quality of the journal.

Since we assign the manuscripts based on the editors' areas of competence and interest, we greatly rely on their judgement regarding each paper or manuscript.
Editors of JoARBLTM are accountable for everything that is published in this journal. They should take care of the following:

• An effort should be made to satisfy writers' and readers' requirements.
• It should be ensured that the articles published are of the highest possible quality.
• Attempts to make constant improvements to JoARBLTM should be ensured.
• The work’s integrity should be preserved.
• The right to free speech should be maintained.
• The compromise of intellectual standards due to corporate needs should be prevented.
• It should be made certain that the authors have shared the information regarding the donor who has provided funding for the study and the role he/she plays in the research, with the readers.
• They should be willing to release retractions, explanations, and corrections, if and when required.
• It should be made certain that the procedure for the peer review process has been followed.
• The decision of whether to accept or reject an article for publication should be taken only on the basis of the relevance of the study to JoARBLTM's mandate, its significance, originality, and clarity.
• Articles to be published should be chosen based on merit and suitability instead of any personal benefit/interest of the owner/publisher of JoARBLTM, or of authors.
• It should be verified that the JoARBLTM has a clearly stated process in place for authors to challenge editorial decisions.
• It should be made sure that JoARBLTM publishes instructions for authors outlining all expectations. This guideline should be updated on a regular basis.
• Acceptance decisions and other prior Editor's decisions should not be reverted unless grave issues are found with the submission.
• Reviewer guidelines should be provided outlining all expectations. These guidelines need to be updated frequently and to make reference to or provide a link to COPE best practices.
• Procedures should be established to make sure that the anonymity of reviewers of JoARBLTM is maintained.
• Procedures should be established to guarantee that the content submitted to JoARBLTM is kept confidential while it is being reviewed.
• Complaints should be dealt with by following the process outlined in the COPE flowchart.
• It should be ensured that strong and convincing critiques of articles published in JoARBLTM are published unless editors provide strong justifications for not doing so. Authors should be provided with a platform to share their responses, if their work has been questioned.
• Studies with negative findings should be included as well.
• It should be verified that the research published in JoARBLTM complies with globally recognised ethical standards. The Editors should ask for confirmation that every study has been authorised by the relevant authority (such as the institutional review board or the research ethics committee). They should understand, though, that this approval does not imply that the research is ethical.
• Privacy of personal data (such as that acquired via a patient-doctor relationship) should be reserved. As a result, getting patients' or participants’ written informed consent is nearly always required for using patient photos and case reports. If the report is significant for public health (or in some other way), obtaining consent would be exceptionally difficult, and a reasonable person would be unlikely to object to publishing, it might be permissible to publish without explicit consent (all three requirements must be met).
• Proper action should be taken if any kind of misconduct is observed. All papers in JoARBLTM, published and unpublished, are subject to this obligation. Papers that raise questions about potential misconduct should not be rejected straightaway. The Editors have a moral obligation to investigate any such claims. The accused should be contacted first to get their response. The Editors should ask the relevant employers or another suitable body to look into the matter if they are not pleased with the response. They should exert every reasonable effort to guarantee that a thorough investigation is carried out; in the event that this isn't accomplished, they should exert every reasonable effort to find a solution.
• The academic record's integrity should be assured. If a major error, false statement, or incorrect report is discovered to have been published in JoARBLTM, it needs to be quickly and prominently corrected. Following a proper investigation, if an article turns out to be fraudulent, it should be retracted. The retraction ought to be easily discernible to both indexing systems and readers.
• The PDFs of any advertisement received for JoARBLTM are shared with the Editors for their approval regarding the relevance of the advertisement in JoARBLTM. The Editors should reject deceptive advertisements and be open to publishing criticisms based on the same standards as the rest of the journal. Reprints should be released as they appear in JoARBLTM, except in the case of any correction.
• Procedures should be established for handling conflicts of interest involving their employees, writers, editors, and reviewers.

Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers are individuals who suggest improvements in articles, share their opinions regarding articles, and recommend whether an article should be accepted, rejected, or sent for revisions to the author. The editors make decisions regarding articles while keeping in mind the opinions and recommendations of reviewers regarding them.

Every manuscript that appears in JoARBLTM goes through a double-blind peer-review process. The editorial team does not include reviewers. Being on the reviewer board of a journal is a very prestigious and privileged role. Based on the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, the following guidelines have been adopted:

• Reviewers should maintain the confidentiality of any paper they receive, treat all information obtained from peer review as confidential, and refrain from using it for their own gain.
• In order to help authors make improvements to their papers, reviewers should offer unbiased feedback and make observations that are well-supported by evidence.
• Reviewers who feel unqualified to examine a manuscript's research should raise their concerns as soon as possible.
• Manuscripts containing conflict of interest arising from competitive, cooperative, or other relationships or affiliations with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers should not be considered by reviewers.
• Citations of pertinent published work that the authors have not cited should be provided by reviewers. If a reviewer notices any significant similarities or overlaps between the manuscript being considered and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) that they are personally aware of, they should notify the editor about it.

For every article reviewed by the reviewer, we will share the soft copy of the article along with the reviewer certificate (for that particular article), once its issue is released.

Publishing Ethics

JoARBLTM maintains the highest standards of article quality and publication ethics. We are committed to ensuring freedom of expression. The Editorial Board is the final deciding authority on all matters pertaining to publication and advertising; the decision should remain unaffected by any commercial revenue. Therefore, it is expected of all parties—editors, authors, reviewers, and the publisher—to adhere to the standards of ethical behaviour. COPE served as the foundation for the development of the guidelines on publication ethics in JoARBLTM.

We have been verifying the similarity of submitted manuscripts from 2021 using the iThenticate software in association with CrossRef. When malpractice is reported, JoARBLTM complies with the guidelines of the COPE flowchart. JoARBLTM has a policy of not accepting articles with plagiarism, unclear authorship, or duplicate submissions for publication.

The article will be retracted and the author (and co-authors, if any) will not be allowed to submit any article again if any malpractices are found in the article after its publication.

If plagiarism is suspected, the author will be notified and a response will be expected by a specified date. The editor will get in touch with the author's organisation for additional research if they don't hear back within the specified amount of time.

If an author is to be added or removed from an article submitted in JoARBLTM at any point, a signed declaration of agreement and an explanation for the change will have to be provided by each of the authors of that article including the author who wants to be added or removed.

Policy on Human Rights, Ethical Clearance, and Consent of Participant

Without the participant’s prior consent, no information about their identity should be released. All research involving human subjects should adhere to institutional and/or regional ethical guidelines. It should be made clear in the text that the participant’s consent has been acquired if the participant’s identity is disclosed in any way in the article.

A scanned copy of the Ethical Clearance Certificate from the local or institutional ethics committee must be submitted by the author to the editorial board of JoARBLTM. The author should provide information about ethical approval in the Methodology section.

Corrections and Retractions

If a correction is required, JoARBLTM will adhere to the following standards:

• To ensure correct indexing, a correction notice would be published as quickly as possible on an electronic or numbered print page that is included in an electronic or print Table of Contents, outlining changes from and citing the original publication.
• A revised version of the article will be published, detailing the modifications made from the first draft and the date(s) of those changes.
• The articles' earlier submissions (via the OJS) would all be archived by Advanced Research Publications.
• The fact that there are more recent versions of the item would have to be mentioned in earlier electronic versions.
• The most current version should be cited.

The editor is the only person with the authority to make a decision related to the expression of concern and retraction of an article on the basis of COPE Flowcharts, if scientific misconduct is alleged.

Plagiarism Policy

Plagiarism is the use of someone else's ideas or works without giving due credit or permission. At the submission stage, an automated plagiarism checker is used to verify all submissions for plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, which is illegal as well. JoARBLTM has strict policies against plagiarism. The articles are rejected if they are found to contain plagiarised text. Our team at JoARBLTM has been verifying the similarity of submitted manuscripts using the iThenticate software in association with CrossRef from 2021.

The authors are responsible for ensuring that the manuscript is entirely their work and hasn't been published before. No words, figures, or tables from other publications may be used by authors without proper citation and authorization.

Misconduct Allegation Policy

Before submitting the manuscript, authors are requested to thoroughly read the ethical standards and author guidelines of JoARBLTM and to abide by them.

A peer-reviewed article that has been published may be the subject of a report of research misconduct. The following steps should be taken in a sensitive and confidential manner when handling reports of author misconduct in JoARBLTM:

1. An e-mail should be sent to info@adrpublications.in in order to file a complaint about research misconduct.
2. The complainant must specify the exact nature and specifics of the misbehavior; for instance, if plagiarism is suspected, the original and suspected articles must be explicitly cited, and the copied paragraph must be marked.
3. A probe will be carried out, and correspondence between the editor of JoARBLTM and the corresponding author(s) of the alleged paper will occur during this period.
4. The relevant author(s) will be contacted to offer an explanation supported by any relevant proof and factual claims.
5. Depending on the circumstances, the editorial office will take the following actions if the suspected article's author(s) accepts the misconduct complaint:
   
   a. A retraction or an erratum might be required to rectify the situation if the article has already been published. It should be kept in mind that the proper wording of the description may lead to disagreements.
   b. If the misbehavior is brought to light during the review process, the review may proceed with the author(s) making the necessary modifications.
   
   
6. The item may be permanently withdrawn or rejected if no answer is received within the allotted period or if the explanation provided is inadequate. Experts from the pertinent institution or other authorities as needed would be consulted before a decision is made.
7. Following the resolution of the matter, the complainant will be notified of the result.
8. At that point, the complaint case will be deemed resolved.

Privacy Statement

The e-mail addresses and names entered on the website of JoARBLTM will only be used to further the goals of this publication; they will not be shared with outside parties or used for any other reason.