Reporting standards

Authors reporting original research results should present a correct account of the work done, along with a fair discussion of its significance. Data sources should be presented precisely.

An article should provide sufficient information and references to allow others to replicate the work.

Data Access and Retention

Authors should be able to provide the raw data related to an article for editorial review if asked. Authors should also be ready to provide public access to this data. They should keep the data for a reasonable period after the article's publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors should issue a statement that their work is original. If the work and/or words of others have been used, this fact has to be appropriately presented (i.e., cited or quoted).

Every manuscript received will be checked for plagiarism.

The manuscript submitted to Economic Alternatives must have a similarity level below 20%. If the similarity level exceeds 20%, such a manuscript would not be considered for publication in the Economic Alternatives journal.

No part of the manuscript should have plagiarized content.

On Detection of Plagiarism following actions can be taken:

• Immediate rejection of the manuscript.
• Prohibition against all of the authors for any new submissions to the journal.
• The Director / Dean / Head of the concerned College, Institution, or Organization, or the Vice Chancellor/Rector of the University to which the author is affiliated, shall be contacted in order to undertake relevant action against the concerned author.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

Authors must not suggest publishing manuscripts containing basically the same research output that has been submitted to one or more other journals for primary publication. A basic principle is that submitting the same paper concurrently to more than one publisher constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of other authors must always be provided. Authors should cite those publications that had a substantial impact on the scientific area of the manuscript.

Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the content of the manuscript; all those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author is responsible for the list of co-authors, which should include only actual contributors.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose any financial or other possible conflict of interest that might be considered as influencing the results or their interpretation.

Errors in already published works

If any author discovers a substantial error or imprecision in a published work, it is her/his responsibility to promptly notify the Editorial Board and cooperate with the editor to withdraw or correct the paper.

GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN MANUSCRIPT PREPARATION

Publication decisions

The Editorial Board is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should be published.

The Editor-in-Chief is guided by the policies of the Editorial Board for compliance with legal requirements regarding offensive statements, copyright violations, and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may consult with other editors or with reviewers to finalize the decision.

Fair play

Members of the Editorial Board should evaluate manuscripts for their scientific content, disregarding any race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

Members of the Editorial Board should not disclose any information about a submitted paper to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and representatives of the publisher.

The Editorial Board must guarantee the double-blind peer review process in which both authors and referees are anonymous.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Members of the Editorial Board must not disclose the content of any unpublished materials from a submitted manuscript or use it for their own research without the written consent of the authors.

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Reviewers contribute to the editorial decision-making process regarding submitted manuscripts. Reviewers should assist the authors in refining their manuscripts through editorial communications.

Promptness

A reviewer who considers her/himself unqualified to review the suggested research output or finds out that the manuscripts cannot be reviewed promptly should notify the Editor-in-Chief and withdraw from the review process.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat any manuscript received for review as a confidential document. Reviewers must not expose to or discuss with any other party the content of the manuscript, unless authorized by the Editor-in-Chief and the authors.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviewers should act in accordance with the objectivity premise. Reviewers should communicate their opinion clearly, supported by relevant arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers must inform the Editor-in-Chief about any substantial similarity or overlap between a submitted manuscript and any other published work with which they are personally acquainted. Reviewers are also expected to identify relevant published work not cited by the authors.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must keep confidential and must not use for personal benefit any information or ideas obtained during the peer review of a submitted manuscript. Reviewers should decline to consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other links that they may have with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the research work.

GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN PEER REVIEWS

As the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in peer reviews becomes increasingly common, the journal emphasizes the importance of adhering to the ethical code of conduct for scientific publications by considering the following principles:
- Transparency: If AI tools are used during the review process (e.g., for language suggestions or analysis), reviewers must disclose their usage in the review comments or confidential notes to the editor.
- Supplementary Role: AI should serve as a supportive tool, not as a substitute for the reviewer’s critical analysis, expert judgment, or nuanced understanding of the manuscript's content.
- Accountability: Reviewers remain fully responsible for the integrity, accuracy, and originality of their evaluations, regardless of AI assistance.
- Ethical Use:  AI should not be used for tasks that compromise the confidentiality or integrity of the review process, such as sharing manuscript details with third-party services.

By following these guidelines, we aim to maintain the quality and integrity of the peer review process while responsibly embracing technological advancements.

Independence of editorial decisions

The publisher shall not be involved in decisions made by the Editorial Board about the publication of individual articles.

The publisher is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint, or other commercial activity will have no impact on editorial decisions.

Networking with other publishers

The publisher shall assist the Editorial Board in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to the Board and/or reviewers.

Alignment to international standards

The publishers shall cooperate with other renowned publishers and industry associations in establishing standards for best practices regarding ethical matters, errors, and retractions.