The publication of an article in the Bulletin of Economic Studies (BEST) is support and embodies the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the journal editors, the peer reviewers, the authors, the publisher, and the society.
Bulletin of Economic Studies (BEST) has agreed to follow the ethical standards as determined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Author(s) must be obedient and pay attention to the authorship, plagiarism, duplicate (redundant) publication, fabrication of data, manipulation of citation, as well as ethical approval and Intellectual Property Rights. Bulletin of Economic Studies (BEST) takes such publishing ethics issues very seriously and our editors are trained to proceed in such cases with a zero-tolerance policy. To verify the originality of content submitted to our journals, we use tools of plagiarism to check submissions against previous publications.
Bulletin of Economic Studies (BEST), takes its duties of guardianship at all stages of the publishing process and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint, or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
Duties of Editors
The editor boards journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions.
The editor shall ensure that the peer-review process is fair, unbiased, timely. Research articles must typically be reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers. The editor must keep good communication with reviewers.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Standard of Objectivity and Competing Interests
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
If a reviewer suggests that an author includes citations to the reviewer's (or the associates') work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not to increase the reviewer's citation count or enhance the visibility of their work (or that of their associates).
Review of Manuscripts:
The editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer-reviewed. The editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
Duties of Reviewers
A reviewer should review and send the review comments in a due period. If the article is not in your area of interest then revert to the editor so that the other reviewers can be approached.
Contribution to Editorial Decisions:
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity:
Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
Acknowledgment of Sources:
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not review 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.
Duties of Authors
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Data Access and Retention:
Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and Plagiarism:
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others this must be appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from 'passing off' another's paper as the author's paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgment of Sources:
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
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 others 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.
Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects:
If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must identify these in the manuscript.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or another substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works:
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, the author must promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, the author must promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
Above all, matters about journal publishing ethics refer to "Peraturan Kepala Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (Peka LIPI Nomor 5 Tahun 2014) Tentang Kode Etika Publikasi Ilmiah" (The Rules of Indonesian Institute of Sciences Regarding of Code of Scientific Publication Ethics).