Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Greenation Management and Business Review (GMBR) treats ethical publishing as the foundation of trustworthy research. The following principles guide everyone who takes part in publishing an article in GMBR, from the publisher and editors to reviewers and authors, and are aligned with the Code of Conduct of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The Publisher

Greenation Publisher Group safeguards every stage of the publishing process. Revenue from article processing charges, advertising, or other sources never influences editorial decisions. The publisher supports the editorial board in resolving ethical issues, works with other journals and institutions when needed, and maintains a permanent record of all published articles, including any corrections or retractions.

The Editors

Making decisions. The Editor-in-Chief determines which manuscripts are accepted, guided by the validity of the work, its contribution to the field, and its fit with the journal's scope. Decisions follow the editorial board's policies and legal requirements on defamation, copyright, and plagiarism.

Treating authors equally. Editors judge manuscripts only on their academic merit, regardless of the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political views.

Keeping manuscripts confidential. Information about submitted manuscripts is shared only with the corresponding author, reviewers, editorial advisers, and the publisher, as necessary. Editors do not upload manuscripts, or any part of them, into generative AI tools.

Avoiding conflicts of interest. Editors do not use unpublished material from submissions in their own research without written consent, and they step aside from manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists.

Handling editors' own work. When the Editor-in-Chief or a board member submits a manuscript to GMBR, it is assigned to an independent editor and reviewed like any other submission. The submitting editor is excluded from every stage of its review and decision.

Rejecting citation manipulation. Editors never ask authors to cite GMBR or any specific journal to secure acceptance. Reference suggestions must serve the quality of the article itself.

Responding to concerns. When an ethical issue is raised about a manuscript or published article, editors act promptly, contact the authors, and involve their institutions when required, no matter how long ago the article was published.

The Reviewers

Supporting editorial decisions. Reviewers help editors decide on manuscripts and help authors strengthen their work through constructive feedback.

Responding on time. Reviewers who lack the expertise or time to complete a review should notify the editor and withdraw.

Respecting confidentiality. Manuscripts are confidential and must not be shown to or discussed with others without the editor's permission.

Staying objective. Comments should be clear, evidence-based, and free from personal criticism of the authors.

Checking sources. Reviewers should identify relevant uncited work and alert the editor to any substantial overlap with other publications.

Declaring conflicts. Reviewers keep ideas from peer review private and decline manuscripts connected to them through competition, collaboration, or other relationships.

Reviewing without AI. Reviewers must not feed manuscripts into generative AI tools or rely on them to produce review reports. Each review should reflect the reviewer's own expert judgment.

The Authors

Honest reporting. Authors present their research accurately and discuss its significance objectively, with enough detail for others to replicate it. Fabricated or knowingly false statements are unethical.

Trustworthy data and figures. Making up, altering, or selectively manipulating data, tables, charts, or images is not tolerated. Any enhancement of figures must leave the original information intact and accurately represented.

Data availability. Authors should be ready to provide raw data for editorial review and keep it for a reasonable period after publication, while protecting participants' privacy.

Respect for participants. Studies involving people, such as surveys, interviews, focus groups, or workplace observations, must be carried out with participants' informed consent and with their identities protected. Authors should explain in the manuscript how consent was obtained and report ethical approval where their institution or local regulations require it.

Original work. Every submission must be the authors' own work, with all borrowed words and ideas properly cited. Submissions are checked for similarity under the Plagiarism Policy.

One journal at a time. A manuscript must not be under consideration by another journal, and the same research must not be published in more than one primary outlet.

Proper credit. Authors acknowledge publications that shaped their work and do not use privately obtained or confidential information without written permission.

Fair authorship. Only those who contributed significantly to the study are listed as authors; others who helped are acknowledged. The corresponding author confirms that all co-authors approve the final version and its submission using the Permission Form.

Research safety. Any unusual hazards involving chemicals, procedures, or equipment must be clearly identified in the manuscript.

Transparency. Authors disclose all funding sources and any financial or personal interests that could affect their findings.

Use of AI. The use of generative AI in preparing a manuscript must be declared, AI tools cannot be credited as authors, and authors remain accountable for every part of their work. See the AI Statement for details.

Fixing mistakes. Authors who find a significant error in their published article must inform the editor promptly and help correct or retract it.

Dealing with Misconduct

GMBR takes every allegation of misconduct seriously, whether it concerns plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated data, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, hidden conflicts of interest, or disputed authorship. Each case is handled step by step according to the flowcharts of COPE, and the authors concerned are always invited to explain. Possible outcomes include rejection of the manuscript, a published correction or retraction, notification of the authors' institution, and a ban on future submissions.

Post-Publication Changes

GMBR follows COPE guidance when the published record needs to change. A correction is issued for errors that do not undermine the article's conclusions. A retraction is issued when the findings are unreliable or the article involves misconduct such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate publication; the article stays online, clearly labeled as retracted, with a notice explaining why. An expression of concern may be published while an investigation is under way.

Complaints and Appeals

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a written appeal to [email protected], explaining their reasons. The appeal is assessed by an editor who was not involved in the original decision, and that outcome is final. Complaints about editorial conduct, the review process, or published content are welcomed and handled according to COPE procedures.