General Guideline
The Business Research Unit of Faculty of Business, University of Moratuwa is committed towards publishing high quality content which is in par with the publication ethics of COPE Core Practices. (You can access the COPE’s Core Practices through https://publicationethics.org ) In line with the COPE core practices we have prepared following guide line to adhere the ethical standards on Authorship and Contribution and Peer review Process
Allegations of misconduct
We seriously take allegations of misconduct both during the peer review process and after publications. According to the COPE’s best practices all our peer reviewers are verified prior to submission of manuscripts for the review. Any allegation on peer review manipulation suspected during the peer review process will result in suspension of the peer review process and verifying the peer reviewer according to the process stipulated in COPE’s best practices or reviewing by different peer reviewer (Please refer the flow chart https://publicationethics.org/files/peer-review-manipulation-during-review-cope-flowchart.pdf)
Any allegations of peer review manipulation after the publication will result in verifying the peer reviewer (if satisfactory publication stands). In case of verification is not satisfactory editors would decide to conduct post-publication peer review and will consider post publication changes as appropriate based on the post-publication peer review (Please refer the flow chart https://publicationethics.org/files/peer-review-manipulation-after-publication-cope-flowchart.pdf)
Authorship and contribution
All persons who meet authorship criteria should be listed as authors, and all authors certify that they have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for the content, including participation in the concept, design, analysis, writing, or revision of the manuscript. Furthermore, each author needs to certify that this material or similar material has not been and will not be submitted to or published in any other publication.
All persons who have made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (e.g., technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support), but who do not meet the criteria for authorship, should be named in the Acknowledgments and should give their written permission to be named.
The authors are required to fill the Authorship and Conflict of Interest Statement. (Link to Authorization and CoI Statement)
Any suspicion of Authorship and contribution (high level of similarity check, questionable roles of contributors, not responding to reviewers’ comments, changes of authorship without notification during the reviewing stage, unfeasible long author lists, numerous submissions by same authors) will result in suspension of the review process until the authors provide a satisfactory explanation (e.g.: By providing raw data). No or unsatisfactory responses will result in rejection of manuscripts. (To read more on authorship and contribution https://publicationethics.org/files/publication-process-manipulation-cope-flowchart.pdf)
Complaints and Appeals
All the complains and appeals should be directed to the Director Business Research Unit, Faculty of Business, University of Moratuwa. The complaints and appeals will be investigated by a committed consist of the Director and the Editor-in-Chief and the Secretary of the Business Research Unit and the outcome/action will be informed to the party within three weeks after an investigation. The sole power to take necessary actions and decisions related to the complaints and appeals are vested on the above specified committee.
The complaints related to author, an editor, or the conference in general turn out to be well founded, investigations should proceed as warranted. However, a complainant makes repeated allegations against the conference, editor, or author that turn out to be baseless will not be further investigated. Examples according to the COPE guideline,
- Complaints may deal with matters outside the remit of the conference, such as personal complaints against an author or editor.
- Repeated complaints may be trivial or inaccurate allegations about published articles. (e.g.: Allegations related to plagiarism, but evidence presented consisted only in relation to common English phrases like ´According the past studies’, ´The results suggest’. In other cases, complainants list articles with similar titles as incidences of plagiarism; however, the content turns out to be entirely different.)
Complain handling procedure
1) The committee will review and decide whether the complaint meets the threshold level for further investigation. If so, committee will carry out further investigation of the matter. The elements of the threshold level include:
- The party who is making the complaint should provide the committee sufficient, specific information about the matter to demonstrate that a potential ethics violation may have been occurred.
- The complain should be made within three months of the publication of the conference proceeding.
- Complaints relating to circumstances that have already been reviewed and investigated or dismissed will not be rereviewed unless sufficient new evidence is provided to merit reconsideration.
- While anonymous complaints will be treated respectfully and accorded a fair and serious review, individuals are encouraged to provide a name and contact with complaints, noting the limitations that anonymity imposes on the investigation process.
- Complaints which are a harassing, offensive, threatening, or defamatory manner will not be investigated.
2) After reviewing the complain the committee will inform the party who raised the complain whether the complaint meets the threshold level for further investigation. (Within two weeks)
3) If the complaint is within the threshold level committee will further investigate and inform the outcome/action within one month.
Competing Interests
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) defines Conflict of Interest as “when professional judgment concerning a primary interest…may be influenced by a secondary interest"
All the authors, peer reviewers and editors must disclose any conflict of interest and all the authors and reviewers require to sign a statement of CoIs. It is mandatory to include a competing interest statement as required in case of undisclosed conflict of interest in submitted manuscripts. In a case where an undisclosed conflict of interest arises in a published article authors will be notified and will be reassessed, if necessary, based on undisclosed CoIs and will consider appropriate post publication changes if required.
The authors are required to fill the Authorship and Conflict of Interest Statement. (Link to Authorization and CoI Statement)
Data and Reproducibility
We identify the fabricated data and image manipulation are serious violations of publishing ethics. In a case where a reader or a reviewer express the suspicion on fabricated data or image manipulation authors are required to provide a satisfactory explanation. No response or unsatisfactory explanations on such claims can result in rejection of the manuscript and for published articles will result in either retraction of publication or publication of expression of concern, out of the two whichever the committee deemed to be more suitable. (Refer the COPE guideline https://publicationethics.org/files/fabricated-data-published-article-cope-flowchart.pdf)
Ethical Oversight
The authors are expected to obtain ethical approval from relevant authorities and institutions and consent of individuals from whom the data is collected. In case of an ethical concern arise from a reviewer or a reader, authors require to provide evidence on ethical approval or copy of informed consent document. In case of no or unsatisfactory response the manuscripts will be rejected or publication will be retracted while referring to relevant authorities such as author’s employer or person responsible for research governance at institution or profession bodies.
Further we encourage diversity and inclusivity. Therefore, we encourage people from diverse backgrounds to submit their manuscripts with us.
Intellectual Property
The corresponding author need to transfer the copyright of the manuscripts to Business Research Unit, Faculty of Business, University of Moratuwa and provide the consent to publication of the manuscript through the Assignment of copyright form (Link to Assignment of Copyrights). The authors are held responsible for any violation of third-party proprietary right or copyright, or any breach of third-party intellectual property rights, contained in the Article.
The authors of the accepted manuscripts require to pay a registration fee to the conference and this includes publication fee. The payment structure and benefits entitled can be found (link to the payment structure)
Open Access and Self Archiving Policy
ICBR proceeding is open access and available for download through University of Moratuwa e-library without a charge. All papers accepted for the conference will be published in the conference proceedings with an ISSN number. The individual papers will have a separate URL and DOI for easy reference and access.
Peer Review Process
ICBR All submissions judged as suitable for the conference are sent to two experts in the related area for double blind peer review.
All the submitted articles will be checked for the similarity and plagiarism using Turnit in software and the acceptable level of similarity is 25%. The manuscripts exceeding the acceptable level will be requested to be revised or rejected. The decision of acceptance and rejection of papers is a done by editor in chief and associate editors after assessing the reviewer comments. All the accepted papers have to be presented in the ICBR conference and will be published in the conference proceedings.
Guidelines for Authors
Authorship
The authorship of a research article should be based on following four criteria:
- Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
- Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
- Final approval of the version to be published; AND
- Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors.
Author contributions should be declared on initial submission of the article with Authorship and Conflict of Interest statement.
Responsibility of the authors and corresponding author
The authors are responsible and accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done. The corresponding author should ensure that all named 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 and are willing to take appropriate responsibility for it.
Acknowledgment of Non-Authors
Acknowledgements should be done to denote contributions to the work that do not meet the four criteria of authorship such as, supporting the study, general mentoring, collecting data, acting as study coordinator, and other related activities
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors are responsible for the originality of the work submitted and the plagiarism. All the submitted work are expected to use latest version of APA as the referencing method.
Competing Interests
All the authors, disclose any conflict of interest and require to sign a statement of CoIs. It is mandatory to include a competing interest statement as required in case of undisclosed conflict of interest in submitted manuscripts.
Ethical Approval
The authors are expected to obtain ethical approval from relevant authorities and institutions and consent of individuals from whom the data is collected. The authors are expected to submit these if and when a requirement arise.
Multiple, Redundant, or Con current Publication
Multiple, Redundant, or Con current Publication are considered unethical. The authors bear the responsibility of in such instance which can result in retract of the article. Furthermore, each author needs to certify that this material or similar material has not been and will not be submitted to or published in any other publication. Specific author can only submit up to three articles for review.
Post publication corrections
Any inaccuracies discovered after publishing (by readers or authors) will result in the author retracting or correcting his or her work. Any serious errors discovered after publication must be reported to the editor and publisher by the author.
Guideline for Reviewers
All the articles submitted are subjected to a double-blind peer review process carried out by two peer reviewers who are experts in the same field to ensure academic scientific quality. Peer reviewers are expected to adhere to following guidelines.
Expertise
Peer reviewers are expected to evaluate papers that fall within their area of expertise and scope. Any articles that do not fall within the peer reviewer's area of expertise must be reported to the editor.
Promptness
Peer reviewers are expected to complete their reviews of the articles within two weeks of receiving them. If a reviewer finds it difficult to do so, he or she should notify the editor.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Information concerning the manuscripts should not be discussed with others without the approval of the editor. The reviewers should avoid using any data or information from the manuscripts for their personal advantage.
Standards of Objectivities
Reviewers should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers’ comments should be clearly expressed and supported by data or arguments.
Competing Interests
Peer reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Peer reviewers should notify the editor if they have a conflict of interest while reviewing a manuscript.
Publication Misconducts
Peer reviewers should inform the editor if they suspect research or publication misconducts. The committee consist of the Director-BRU, Editor-in-Chief and the Secretary of BRU is responsible for such claims.