The editorial policy of the scientific journal Green, Blue and Digital Economy Journal is based on the principle of objectivity and impartiality in selection of scientific material for publication. Compulsory double-blind review of manuscripts and high requirements for the quality of scientific research, adherence to collegiality in decision-making regarding publication of materials ensure a competitive level of content. The Editors guarantee the copyright and related rights’ enforcement and ensure accessibility and efficiency in communicating with authors.
The Green, Blue and Digital Economy Journal (hereinafter the Journal) has developed and adopted these rules in accordance with the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), to ensure ethics and quality in publication.
1. ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Decision on publication
The Editorial Board of the Journal is responsible for the proper submission of scientific materials to the consideration of the scientific community, as well as reviews the submitted materials for plagiarism using verification systems. All materials, after preliminary evaluation by the Editor, undergo an independent anonymous double-blind review. The Editorial Board ensures the confidentiality and impartiality of the review process. The Editorial Board undertakes to provide an author with reviewers, who in a timely and impartial manner carry out the duties of reviewing the article, are not financially interested in the research and do not represent the interests of a competing organization. The Editorial Board does not influence the decisions of the reviewers. If there is a positive and a negative review of the manuscript, the Executive Editor appoints an additional Reviewer. Negative feedback is considered by the Editorial Board which makes the final decision. If the manuscript is rejected, the Editorial Board reserves the right not to enter into a discussion with the Authors. The Editorial Board reserves the right to refuse, after preliminary consideration, the submission of materials for review in case of incorrect manuscript design, inconsistency with the basic scientific criteria, the Journal scope, plagiarism, re-publication, etc.
The Editorial Board evaluates the materials in terms of content and scientific value, regardless of age, race, gender, sexual orientation, religious and political views, origin, and nationality of the Author.
The Editorial Board limits the confidentiality of the publication process to: Author, Reviewers, members of the Editorial Board, Publisher, and, if necessary, Research Advisors. The Editorial Board guarantees the protection of unpublished data received from the Author.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policy
The Executive Editor of the Journal recuses himself from the review of materials in case of conflict of interests as a result of competition, collaboration or other relations with the Author and organizations related to the materials. The Journal publishes information on financial support for research.
If the Executive Editor finds strong evidence of the fallacy of the conclusions provided in the work, plagiarism, falsification and fabrication of data, he informs the Author and the Publisher to make a decision on publication of corrections, clarification, apology, or a retraction, if necessary.
Research Engagement and Collaboration
The Editorial Board publishes in the public domain on the website the current Rules for Authors and Reviewers. The Editorial Board and the Publisher take appropriate measures to resolve the conflict when they receive a complaint or claim on ethical violations regarding the submitted manuscript or the Journal article. Each report of unethical conduct must be investigated, regardless of the time when the reported violation could have been committed. In case of confirmation of information on violation of ethical principles, the Editorial Board and the Publisher publish corrections, refutation or apologies. In case of disputed issues, the Editorial Board acts in accordance with the COPE Guidelines on the Issues of Public Ethics Violations.
2. ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS OF REVIEWERS
Reviewing the materials helps the Editorial Board make the decision to publish the article, and helps the Authors improve their work.
If it is not possible to review materials because of lack of qualifications or time, the Reviewer is obliged to inform the Editorial Board about this and shred or return the received materials.
The Reviewer has no right to discuss the materials received for review and the data contained therein, to share them with colleagues and use in his own interests. If there is need to consult colleagues, the Reviewer should first agree on this issue with the Executive Editor.
Manuscript Requirements and Objectivity
The Reviewer provides an objective assessment of the submitted materials, their compliance to the journal profile, novelty, and relevance, and evaluates the credibility, reliability and quality of conclusions and data. Personal criticism of submitted materials is inadmissible. The conclusions of the Reviewer should be well-grounded and provide references to authoritative sources.
Recognition of Primary Sources
The Reviewer should evaluate the correctness of citation and the availability of properly cited bibliographic references, and indicate relevant published works that have not been referenced in the work. In case of coincidence with other works and studies, revealing falsification, plagiarism, etc. the Reviewer should report this to the Executive Editor.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policy
The Reviewer should not be involved in peer review if he or she is in close personal or professional relationship with the Author or co-authors of the article or research organization where the research was conducted or works in a competing organization on the same topic. The Reviewer should inform the Executive Editor of other possible conflicts of interest (political, religious or financial) and seek the advice of the Editorial Board if there is any doubt about the matter. The information and ideas of the manuscript should not be used for personal gain.
The Reviewer evaluates the manuscript in terms of content and scientific value, regardless of age, race, gender, sexual orientation, religious and political views, origin, and nationality of the Author.
3. ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS OF AUTHORS
The Authors of the manuscript provide reliable scientific data and objective conclusions. The manuscript should contain enough details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction of methodology and research results.
Data access and storage
The Editorial Board has the right to request from the Author primary research data that are relevant to the manuscript for their subsequent submission to the Reviewer.
Originality and plagiarism
The Authors use original research data in the manuscript; if bibliographic data or other authors' statements are used, appropriate citations should be provided. Reproduction of part of other publications, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, falsification, and fabrication of data are unacceptable in the article. The Authors may submit materials only in one journal. Submission to two or more editions simultaneously or submission of a previously published article is an inadmissible violation of ethics leading to rejection of the manuscript.
Authorship of Publication
The Authors of the work are the persons who have made a significant contribution to the research and preparation of materials for publication. The Authors should make sure that all participants involved in the preparation of the materials are indicated as co-authors and agree with the ordering of the list of co-authors and the final version of the submitted materials.
Conflict of Interest
The Authors indicate financial or other conflicts of interest that may affect the results or conclusions presented in the manuscript and its evaluation. Funding sources must be clearly stated.
Errors in manuscripts
The Authors are obliged to notify the Executive Editor about errors and inaccuracies in the manuscript, if any, and to facilitate their correction or retraction of the manuscript. If the Executive Editor receives information about errors in the publication from a third party, the Author can be invited to take part in resolving the issue.
Authors’ obligation concerning the peer review process
The Author has the right to explicitly state in the accompanying e-mail letter, any and every foreseeable conflict of interests which could conceivably lead to prejudice or bias during the reviewing process, on the Reviewer's part or his own.
Disclosure of Conflict of Interest
In order to ensure transparency and provide an opportunity for readers to make their own assessments and objective conclusions regarding the study, the Editorial Board insists on the Authors disclosing all conflicts of interest. Responsible for disclosing of a conflict of interest is the Corresponding author. A conflict of interest can be financial or non-financial. The Authors are required to declare any potential or real conflict of interest that may affect the work and the results obtained. The Corresponding author on behalf of all authors should fill in the Form of disclosure of a conflict of interest and submit it together with the manuscript. ration and any published paper or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.