Law, Business and Sustainability Herald

Ethical Standards

The Law, Business and Sustainability Herald seeks to fulfil its mission and, for this purpose, introduces ethical standards. Adherence to these ethical standards is mandatory for participants in the editorial process. LBSHerald takes a neutral position concerning the author's position on the Journal's pages.

LBSHerald follows the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) recommendations, particularly the Guidelines on Good Publication Practice. LBSHerald's Editorial Policy takes these recommendations into account.

In developing the ethical standards, we have taken into account the Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK).

LBSHerald's ethical standards include two sections. The first section contains ethical requirements for participants in the editorial process. The second section contains the procedure for identifying and reacting to participants' unethical behaviour in the editorial process.

1. Ethical requirements.

1.1. Responsibilities of the Editorial Board:

1.1.1. The Editorial Board carries out the general management of the Journal, controls the quality of its content and compliance with the Journal's mission.

1.1.2. The Editorial Board appoints the Editorial Board Chairman, taking into account the personal and professional qualities of the applicant and monitors the Chairman's compliance with ethical standards.

1.1.3. The Editorial Board does not interfere in the editorial process but may point out the identified shortcomings to the Editorial Board Chairman.

1.1.4. Members of the Editorial Board do not have any advantages and do not use their official position when submitting an article authored by them for publication in a journal. Members of the Editorial Board do not attempt to identify the reviewer or inform the reviewer of their authorship.

1.1.5. Members of the Editorial Board do not influence the editor's decision to reject or accept any article for publication.

1.2. Responsibilities of the Editorial Board Chairman.

1.2.1. Editorial Board Chairman controls the quality of the issue before its publication.

1.2.2. Editorial Board Chairman appoints an Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the personal and professional qualities of the applicant and monitors his compliance with ethical standards.

1.2.3. The Editorial Board Chairman does not interfere in the editorial process except as provided in the second part of these standards. The Editorial Board Chairman does not try to influence the participants of the editorial process and refrains from actions that could compromise the quality control system.

1.2.4. The Editorial Board Chairman considers all complaints received in connection with a possible violation of ethical standards and makes an informed and reasoned decision, regardless of the subject of the complaint. Complaints documentation is kept for at least two years.

1.2.4. Editorial Board Chairman may intervene in the editorial process in the case of:

- detection of unethical behaviour of the Editor-in-Chief;

- detection of low quality of the article (articles) included in the current issue;

- detection of cases of fraud by participants in the editorial process.

In this case, the Editorial Board Chairman may remove the Editor-in-Chief and perform his duties until a new Editor-in-Chief is appointed. 

Also, Editorial Board Chairman conducts the editorial process if Editor-in-Chief is an author (co-author) of an article.

1.3. Responsibilities of Editor-in-Chief.

1.3.1. The Editor-in-Chief diligently performs the duties provided by the Editorial Policy.

1.3.2. In the performance of his or her duties, the Editor-in-Chief treats all authors neutrally, regardless of their race, gender, language, religion, political or other beliefs, national or social origin, property or another status. Personal acquaintance with the Editor-in-Chief does not affect any decisions regarding the editorial process.

1.3.3. The author's attempt to influence the Editor-in-Chief's decision in any way results in the final refusal to publish the article and makes further cooperation impossible.

1.3.4. When selecting articles, the Editor-in-Chief pays attention only based on their academic merit, without commercial influence.

1.4. Responsibilities of reviewers.

1.4.1. Reviewers work to ensure a decent academic level of the article, diligently and promptly.

1.4.2. Reviewers are confidential when working with the manuscript, do not distribute it, and not comment publicly.

1.4.3. Reviewers refrain from using the manuscript or part thereof for purposes other than the review.

1.4.4. Reviewers refrain from providing comments that are not directly related to the manuscript and its quality.

1.4.5. Reviewers do not claim or receive any remuneration for their work. Their reward is service to science.

1.4.6. Reviewers promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief of the inability to participate in the editorial process due to a conflict of interest or other reasons.

1.5. Responsibilities of authors.

1.5.1. The authors provide the most accurate and complete data regarding their manuscript, authorship and institutional affiliation.

1.5.2. The authors guarantee that the submitted manuscript (or part thereof) is not considered and is not published in any other publication.

1.5.3. The authors guarantee that the submitted manuscript is original and contains all references to material from other sources.

1.5.4. The authors guarantee that any research is performed following the law. Authors must obtain direct permission from study participants and maintain their confidentiality.

1.5.5. The authors report any conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of the study.

1.5.6. The authors inform the Editor-in-Chief if the article accepted for publication contains a significant error, contributing to the correction or refutation of such an error.

1.5.7. The authors do not attempt to identify the reviewer or influence the decision of the Editor-in-Chief.

1.6. Publisher Responsibilities.

1.6.1. The Publisher exercises general control over the compliance of the quality of the publication with the publishing standards and does not interfere in the editorial process. In case of any problems, the Publisher shall notify the Editorial Board Chairman.

2. Reaction to unethical behaviour.

2.1. Identification of unethical behaviour.

2.1.1. Unethical behaviour can be identified by anyone involved in the editorial process, as well as Journal readers and others.

2.1.2. In case of recognising unethical behaviour, the person must immediately notify the Editorial Board Chairman. Informing the Editorial Board Chairman, such a person provides complete, accurate and sufficient information.

2.1.3. Unethical conduct may include plagiarism, fraud, falsification and other cases set out in these standards but not limited to.

2.2. Consideration of a complaint of unethical behaviour.

2.2.1. The Editorial Board Chairman makes an initial decision based on the complaint results. If the Editorial Board Chairman finds the complaint significant, reviewing the complaint begins with the involvement of the Editorial Board.

2.2.2. Before the hearing, the Editorial Board Chairman collects complete information on the violation following the principles of confidentiality and does not disseminate such information to third parties.

2.2.3. In case of minor violations, the violator is allowed to provide explanations without involvement in consideration of the Editorial Board.

2.2.4. In case of detection of significant violations, the Editorial Board participates in consideration of the complaint.

2.3. The results of the complaint.

2.3.1. Based on the complaint review, the Editorial Board Chairman makes one of the following decisions.

2.3.1.1. Informs the participant of the editorial process about where and under what circumstances the violation of ethical standards occurred.

2.3.1.2. Sends a strict letter to the violator. This letter should contain a description of the identified violations and a call for lawful behaviour in the future.

2.3.1.3. Publishes an official notice on the Journal's website describing the violation.

2.3.1.4. Publishes an editorial report describing the violation.

2.3.1.5. Sends an official letter to the funding organisation or employer of the author or reviewer.

2.3.1.6. Carries out an official retraction of the publication from the Journal in combination with informing the employer of the author or reviewer, data storage and indexing agencies and organisations, as well as readers.

2.3.1.7. Sends materials for further consideration to a higher authority.