Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Studies and Scientific Researches. Economics Edition (SCECO) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics. This statement outlines the responsibilities of all parties involved in the publication process and follows the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
1. Publication and Authorship
All submitted manuscripts are subject to rigorous peer review by experts in the field, through a double-blind process designed to ensure unbiased and fair evaluation.
Manuscripts must be original and not previously published or under consideration elsewhere; simultaneous submission to multiple journals is prohibited.
Authors must present their research accurately and provide sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Publications that have been influential in the reported work must be properly cited, and the work of others must always be duly acknowledged.
All listed authors must have significantly contributed to the research. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors are included, that no qualifying author has been omitted, and that all co-authors have approved the final manuscript and its submission. Any change in authorship between versions of a submission must be declared to the editor.
2. Authors' Responsibilities
Authors are responsible for ensuring that their work is original, free from plagiarism, and does not infringe the intellectual property rights of others. They must disclose any conflicts of interest that might influence the results or their interpretation.
If errors are discovered in published work, authors must promptly inform the editor and cooperate to correct or retract the paper. Authors should ensure the accuracy of their data and provide access to raw data when reasonably requested for review.
3. Reviewers' Responsibilities
Reviewers contribute to editorial decisions and help improve manuscripts through objective, timely, and constructive review. They must maintain the confidentiality of the review process and must not disclose information about the manuscript or contact the authors directly without the editor's permission.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work not cited by the authors and bring any ethical concerns — such as suspected plagiarism or data fabrication — to the editor's attention. They must declare any conflict of interest that might affect their impartiality and recuse themselves where necessary. Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or review materials into external AI tools (see Section 6).
4. Editors' Responsibilities
Editors are responsible for publication decisions based on the manuscript's importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope. They must ensure a fair and unbiased peer-review process, maintain confidentiality, and manage conflicts of interest.
Editors promote high standards of ethical conduct, take steps to prevent publication misconduct, and act appropriately when ethical complaints are raised, including investigating claims and issuing corrections or retractions as needed. All editorial decisions are made by human editors.
5. Publishing Ethics Issues
The journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all reasonable measures against malpractice. Authors, reviewers, and editors must adhere to ethical guidelines throughout the publication process. In cases of suspected misconduct, the journal follows COPE guidelines.
6. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) Tools
As part of its commitment to ethical publishing and academic integrity, SCECO adopts the following policy on the use of Generative AI (GenAI) tools.
a. Acceptable uses in manuscript preparation
Authors may use GenAI-based tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, Claude) for language refinement — grammar and spelling correction, rephrasing, or summarizing content originally written by the author. Acceptable uses include improving English expression and clarity, refining abstract fluency, and enhancing the formatting of references or technical language, provided authors remain fully accountable for the final text. These tools may not be used to generate original scientific content, fabricate results, or produce entire sections without meaningful human authorship and validation.
b. Disclosure of AI assistance
If GenAI tools were used during manuscript preparation, authors must disclose this in the Acknowledgements section, stating the tool and the specific assistance provided.
Example: "The authors used [tool name and version] to refine the English grammar and clarity of the manuscript draft. All scientific content was conceived, written, and validated solely by the authors."
Failure to disclose the use of GenAI may be considered a breach of publishing ethics.
c. Prohibited uses
GenAI tools must not be used to generate entire papers, data, literature reviews, or theoretical models without meaningful human contribution; to fabricate references or alter existing citations; to draft reviewer reports or editorial decisions; to impersonate identities; or to produce unverified auto-translations. AI tools must not be listed as authors under any circumstance.
d. Accountability
Authors bear full responsibility for the content of their manuscript, including any parts drafted or refined with GenAI tools — for the accuracy of information, the originality and proper citation of sources, and ethical compliance. By submitting, authors confirm that they have reviewed and approved all content and take personal responsibility for its integrity.
e. Editorial and reviewer use of GenAI
The journal may use AI-assisted tools to support editorial screening — such as plagiarism detection, verification of numerical and statistical consistency, reference checking, and scope assessment — under human supervision and subject to confidentiality safeguards. The outputs of such tools serve only as decision-support for the editorial team.
GenAI tools are not used to generate peer review reports or editorial decisions, and no AI system acts as a reviewer or decision-maker. All evaluations and decisions remain human-led and accountable. Reviewers must not upload manuscripts into external AI tools without prior authorization from the editorial office, in order to protect the confidentiality of the double-blind process.
This GenAI policy forms part of the broader publication ethics of SCECO and is reviewed periodically in line with developments in technology and publishing standards.
7. Handling of Plagiarism
Submitted manuscripts are screened using plagiarism-detection software. Plagiarism in any form, including self-plagiarism, is unacceptable. Where plagiarism is detected, the manuscript will be rejected, and in serious cases the journal may take further action in line with COPE guidelines.
8. Data Fabrication and Falsification
The journal strictly prohibits the fabrication or falsification of data. Detected instances will result in rejection of the manuscript and appropriate action in accordance with COPE guidelines.
9. Conflicts of Interest
All participants in the publication process (authors, reviewers, editors) must disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence the content or review of a manuscript. The journal handles such conflicts transparently to protect the integrity of the publication process.
10. Confidentiality
The journal ensures the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, including details of authors, reviewers, and the content of the review process. Personal information is not disclosed outside the editorial and review process without the authors' explicit consent, and is handled in accordance with the journal's Privacy Statement.
11. Complaints and Appeals
The journal provides a clear mechanism for handling complaints and appeals regarding editorial decisions. Authors have the right to appeal, and such appeals are reviewed fairly and transparently.
By adhering to these standards, SCECO aims to foster a trustworthy and credible academic environment and to safeguard the integrity of the scholarly record.
