Ethics in publishing

The publication of an article in the double-blind peer-reviewed JEB is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody scientific methods.

It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviors for all parties involved in the act of publishing.

Duties for the Editor-in-chief

  1. The Editor-in-chief is responsible for assigning reviewers and is the last person to make approval to the manuscripts accepted for publication.
  2. The Editor-in-chief must ensure that each manuscript is initially checked, including the examination of the manuscript’s originality and preparation before it is assigned for a double-blind peer-review.
  3. Based on the review report, the Editor-in-chief has the right to accept, decline, or request the manuscript to revise.

Duties for authors

  1. The author is primarily and directly responsible before Vietnam and the International Law on Intellectual Property for the content, quality, legality, and plagiarism (if any) of the article. The author must give a clear and detailed citation of the ideas, research findings of the works, or references belonging to other authors published at home and abroad; ensure that the use of those data is agreed upon by the individuals or institutions that own the data. The author must follow the guidelines on citation and references issued by JEB; and is encouraged to use iThenticate or other software programs to check for similarity before submitting to JEB. Plagiarism is considered an ethical violation and is not acceptable.
  2. The author is responsible for the arrangement of names of himself/herself and co-authors, as well as the rights and obligations of the authors. In which: (i) Corresponding author: Takes responsibility for the scientific publication of the authors. (ii) Co-authors: Participate in the research, editing, and commenting to improve the quality of the article.
  3. The author must guarantee to comply with the journal’s author guidelines; revise, supplement, and finalize the manuscript at the request of the reviewer and the Editor-in-chief.
  4. The author must guarantee that the manuscript is not being considered for publication elsewhere and takes responsibility for having the same manuscript published elsewhere (if any); does not include any personal information in the manuscript; and makes no contact with the peer-reviewer during the editorial process.
  5. The author must submit an explanation to the Editor-in-chief of why he/she withdraws the manuscript despite it has been accepted. If the explanation is not accepted by the Editor-in-chief, the author is requested to reimburse at least the reviewing and editing fees to the journal.
  6. Whenever a mistake is detected in the online submission system or in the published paper, the author takes responsibility for keeping the journal informed of this mistake and co-operating with the journal to withdraw or make amendments to the paper if the Editor-in-chief finds such action necessary. If the journal is informed by a third party on the mistake in the paper, the author is responsible for collaborating with the journal including the provision of evidence to the journal if requested.

Duties for reviewers

  1. The reviewer is selected to conduct a double-blind peer-review to the manuscript; the reviewer is responsible for evaluating the scientific content of the manuscript in an optimistic, honest manner, and completing the review according to the request and time as set.
  2. The reviewer is responsible for informing the Editor-in-chief of the quality and scientific content of the manuscript, and giving comments to the manuscript (according to 4 levels: Accepted for publication as it is; Accepted for publication with minor revisions required; Accepted for publication with substantial revisions; Declined); encouraged to use iThenticate or other software programs to check for similarity.
  3. The reviewer is not allowed to disclose any information relating to the manuscript he/she accepts assessing.
  4. The reviewer must guarantee that the information displayed in the manuscript has clear originality. Any similarities between the submitted manuscript and the published paper (s) must be reported to the Editor-in-chief.
  5. The reviewer must make a clear declaration with point-by-point mannered comments.
  6. In case the reviewer can't complete the reviewing process, he/she must make immediate notification to the Editor-in-chief so the manuscript can be assigned to another reviewer.