Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The International Journal of Business, Arts and Scientific Study (IJBASS) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics. This statement sets out the ethical responsibilities of all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher. It is based on the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and on the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing jointly issued by COPE, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).

Submission of a manuscript to IJBASS implies that all authors have read and agreed to the standards described below.

1. Duties of Editors

Publication decisions. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which submitted manuscripts are published. Decisions are based solely on the scholarly merit, originality, clarity and relevance of the work to the scope of the journal, informed by the reports of independent peer reviewers. Decisions are never influenced by the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, institutional affiliation or political philosophy. The Editor-in-Chief is bound by the legal requirements then in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism, and may consult other editors or reviewers in reaching a decision.

Fair play. Manuscripts are evaluated on their intellectual content alone. The editorial team does not give preferential treatment to submissions from members of the editorial board, from the publisher's own institution, or from authors known personally to an editor.

Confidentiality. Editors and 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. Submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest. Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal advantage. An editor who has a competing interest in a submission — whether financial, institutional, collaborative or personal — must withdraw from handling it, and the manuscript must be reassigned to another editor.

Editorial submissions. When a member of the editorial team is an author of a submitted manuscript, that person is excluded entirely from the editorial process for that manuscript. The submission is handled by an independent editor and the review is conducted without the author-editor's knowledge of reviewer identities or access to the editorial record.

Vigilance over the published record. Editors act promptly when ethical concerns are raised about a submitted or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour is examined, even when it is brought to the journal's attention years after publication.

2. Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communication with the author, may assist the author in improving the manuscript. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour.

Promptness. Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript, or who knows that a prompt review will be impossible, should notify the editor immediately and decline the invitation so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality. Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor. This applies equally to invited reviewers who decline the invitation. Manuscripts must not be uploaded to artificial-intelligence tools, generative language models or other third-party services, as doing so constitutes disclosure of confidential material.

Standards of objectivity. Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly, with supporting arguments, so that the authors can use them to improve the manuscript.

Acknowledgement 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 reported previously 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.

Conflicts of interest. Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the paper.

3. Duties of Authors

Reporting standards. Authors reporting 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. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data access and retention. Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data where this is practicable. In any event, authors should retain such data for a reasonable period after publication.

Originality and plagiarism. Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works, and that where the work or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. All submissions are screened as described in the journal's Plagiarism Policy.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Manuscripts previously posted on a recognised preprint server are eligible for consideration, provided this is disclosed at submission.

Acknowledgement of sources. Proper acknowledgement 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 — in conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties — must not be used or reported without explicit written permission from the source.

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. Others who have participated in substantive aspects of the research project should be acknowledged. The corresponding author ensures 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 and agreed to its submission. Requests to add, remove or reorder authors after submission must be accompanied by written agreement from all authors, including the person being added or removed.

Use of artificial intelligence. Artificial-intelligence tools do not satisfy the criteria for authorship and must not be listed as authors. Where generative AI has been used in the preparation of a manuscript, its use must be disclosed in the Methods or Acknowledgements section, naming the tool and describing how it was used. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality and integrity of the entire text.

Hazards, human subjects and animal subjects. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. Research involving human participants must have been conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by an appropriate institutional review board or ethics committee; the approving body and reference number must be stated. Informed consent must have been obtained from all participants, and authors must confirm this in the manuscript. Research involving animals must comply with relevant institutional and national guidelines.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed, including the grant number where applicable.

Fundamental errors in published works. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

4. Duties of the Publisher

Bangladesh Center for Research and Planning, as publisher of IJBASS, supports the editorial independence of the journal. Editorial decisions are taken by the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board without interference from the publisher, from advertisers or from any commercial partner. The publisher is responsible for maintaining the journal's technical infrastructure, for ensuring the long-term preservation of published content, and for assisting the editorial team in communicating with other journals and publishers where this is useful in resolving ethical concerns.

5. Handling Allegations of Misconduct

IJBASS follows the COPE flowcharts when responding to suspected misconduct, whether the concern arises before or after publication, and whether it is raised by an editor, a reviewer, a reader or an institution.

On receiving an allegation, the Editor-in-Chief first establishes whether the concern is specific and supported by evidence. The corresponding author is then invited to respond within a defined period, normally four weeks. Where the response is unsatisfactory or absent, the matter is referred to the authors' institution. The journal does not reach conclusions about intent; findings of misconduct are a matter for the employing institution. Throughout, the identity of the person raising the concern is kept confidential unless they consent to disclosure.

Depending on the outcome, the journal may publish a correction, publish an expression of concern, retract the article, or take no action. Where an article is found to be unreliable, the journal acts regardless of how long ago it was published.

6. Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern

Correction. Issued where a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading. Corrections are published as separate, citable items, linked bidirectionally to the original article, which remains available in its original form.

Retraction. Issued where the main findings of the work are unreliable, whether as a result of honest error or of misconduct; where the article constitutes plagiarism or redundant publication; where it reports unethical research; or where copyright or other legal rights have been infringed. Retracted articles are not removed from the journal website. They are retained, clearly watermarked as retracted on every page, and accompanied by a retraction notice stating who is retracting the article and why.

Expression of concern. Issued where there is well-founded concern about the integrity of a published work but the investigation is inconclusive or ongoing.

All such notices are made freely available, are assigned their own DOI, and are linked to and from the article concerned so that the correction travels with the record in indexing databases.

7. Complaints and Appeals

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision should write to the Editor-in-Chief at editor@ijbassbd.com within thirty days of the decision, setting out the specific grounds of the appeal and responding point by point to the reviewers' comments. Appeals are considered by an editor who was not involved in the original decision. The outcome of an appeal is final.

Complaints about the conduct of the editorial process, about a member of the editorial team, or about the journal's adherence to the policies set out here, should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief and will be acknowledged within ten working days. Where a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it will be referred to the publisher.

8. Post-Publication Discussion

IJBASS welcomes substantive post-publication commentary on the work it publishes. Readers may submit letters to the editor or commentaries responding to published articles. Where a comment raises a material concern about an article, the authors of the original article are given the opportunity to respond, and both the comment and the response are published together.

Contact

Questions about this statement, or notifications of suspected misconduct, should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief at editor@ijbassbd.com.