Terms & Conditions
ETHICAL STANDARDS IN PUBLISHING, WHISTLEBLOWING, AND MALPRACTICE
As the publisher of the Economic Thought journal, the Economic Research Institute of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences fulfills its duties of protection at all stages of the publishing activity with the utmost care and applies high ethical standards and good practices. In their work, the editorial board of the journal fully complies with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), available at: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Guidelines.
DUTIES OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD
The editorial board of the Economic Thought journal applies in their work the good practices presented in the Ethics Toolkit for Successful Editorial office of the COPE.
Decisions to publish a submitted manuscript
The Editorial Board of Economic Thought journal makes decisions on which manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Board should be published. Decisions are made on the basis of the anonymous reviews received, which verify and evaluate the work received and its relevance to researchers and readers. The editorial board is guided by the journal's policy but also complies with any current restrictions by the legal requirements in force at the time of publication of the relevant material, including those relating to libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editorial board may consult with other editors or reviewers before deciding on publication.
Manuscripts are judged on their intellectual content without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, nationality, citizenship, or political affiliation of the authors.
Under no circumstances shall the Editor-in-Chief and members of the editorial board disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, the manuscript reviewers, potential reviewers, other consultants associated with the manuscript, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and prevention of conflicts of interest
Under no circumstances shall unpublished material or ideas described in a manuscript, submitted for peer review, be used in the editorial board members' own research without the express written consent of the author. Strictly confidential information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not be used for personal gain. Editorial board members should decline to review manuscripts if a conflict of interest arises for competition, collaboration, or other relationships or affiliations with any of the authors, organizations, or (possibly) institutions associated with the materials. The editorial board should require authors to disclose relevant competing interests and to publish corrections if, after the publication of their material, it is discovered that such competing interests are present.
Interference and cooperation in investigations
The ERI at BAS (in conjunction with the Editorial Board) will take appropriate action in response to the submission of a complaint of ethical misconduct in a submitted manuscript or published material. Typically, these measures include contacting the author of the manuscript or published article and determining the validity of the complaint received or claims made, but notifications may also be sent to the appropriate institutions and research organizations, and if the complaint is found to be substantiated, a correction, rebuttal, as appropriate should be published, or other action should be taken. A decision must be made in regard to any information received about non-compliance with ethical standards in editorial activity and action must be taken, even if the violation is discovered years after the publication of the material in question.
DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
The reviewers of the Economic Thought journal are guided in their work by the Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Contributing to the decisions of the Editorial Board
Reviews help the editorial board in making publication decisions and, through the exchange of information between the author and the editorial board, can also contribute to the improvement of the manuscript submitted. Reviews are an essential component of formal communication between scholars. The editorial board of Economic Thought journal share the view that all scholars who wish to contribute to scholarly publications assume the duty to participate in the peer review process.
Any person selected as a reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to review the research underlying a manuscript, or is aware that he or she cannot meet the deadline for the review assigned, should notify the editorial board forthwith and not commit to writing the review so that it can be assigned to another reviewer.
All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Under no circumstances may they be shown to or discussed with others except with the permission of the Editor-in-Chief (in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances). This obligation also applies to persons invited as reviewers who have declined to write a review.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be written in compliance with standards of objectivity. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate and unacceptable. Reviewers should express their views clearly and provide relevant arguments in favour of their opinions.
Reference to sources
Any claim that an observation, theoretical conclusion, or argument has already been described in the scientific literature must be accompanied by a relevant citation. In addition, the reviewer must notify the editorial board of any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and other published material personally known to the reviewer.
Disclosure and prevention of conflicts of interest
Strictly confidential information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and may not be used for personal gain. The reviewer should not review manuscripts in case of conflict of interest resulting from competition, collaboration, or other relationships or affiliations with any of the authors, organizations, or institutions associated with the articles.
DUTIES OF AUTHORS
Standards for submitting manuscripts for publication
Authors of manuscripts containing results of original research should correctly describe the work they have done and its objective significance. The manuscript should accurately present the main data used as evidence. Each manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references so that others can reproduce the work done. Falsifications or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Access to and storage of data
When submitting a manuscript to the editorial office, authors may be required to provide the source data from their research with the manuscript for the purposes of the peer review process, and they should be prepared to make this data publicly available if practicable. In any case, they should be able to provide access to this data to other competent persons for a period of at least 10 years after publication, provided that the confidentiality of the participants is protected and the legal rights of the owner of the data permit its disclosure.
Originality or plagiarism
Authors must ensure that they have written and submitted to the editors an entirely original work, and if they have used works and/or phrases from other authors, these citations should be properly acknowledged as such. Plagiarism takes many forms, ranging from copying someone else's material and passing it off as one's own, to copying significant portions of someone else's material (without attribution), to claiming research results conducted by other authors as one's own. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behaviour in the publication of scientific material and is unacceptable.
Submission/publication of the same manuscript in several publications
The general rule is that an author should not publish manuscripts describing broadly the same research in more than one edition or as the same primary (main) publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously constitutes unethical behaviour in the practice of scholarly publishing and is unacceptable. An author may not submit material already published to another journal for consideration. The editorial board of the journal should have explicitly provided consent to the author in the case of a secondary publication, which must certainly reflect the same data and interpretations as in the primary document. The secondary publication must also cite and refer to the primary material.
Reference to sources
It is a mandatory rule that the acknowledgment of the works of others used must be properly formalised in the submitted manuscript. Authors are required to cite the publications that were influential in determining the nature and character of the manuscript proposed for publication. Information obtained in a private relationship, i.e., during a conversation, in the course of correspondence, or in discussion with third parties, may in no case be used or published without the express written permission of the source of that information. Information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, for example, in the review of manuscripts or grant project documentation, may in no case be used without the express written permission of the author of the material involved in those services.
Authorship of the manuscript
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the concept, design, execution, or interpretation of the research. All persons who have made significant contributions to a scientific study should be listed as co-authors. In cases where there are other contributors to certain significant aspects of a research project, there should be an acknowledgment of their involvement or they should appear on a list of contributors. The corresponding author must ensure that only all the actual co-authors are included in the manuscript and that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and have given their consent to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and prevention of conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscripts any material conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that could be seen to influence the results of their research or the interpretation of their manuscripts. Both co-authors and any sources of financial support for a research project should be acknowledged. Examples of potential conflicts of interest, which must be disclosed, include: a place of employment, consultancies, interests in commercial companies, fees received, paid expert reports, patent applications/registrations, grants, and other forms of research funding. All potential conflicts of interest should be identified as early as possible.
Anonymous peer review
Authors of submitted manuscripts are required to participate in the anonymous peer review process and to cooperate fully by responding adequately and in a timely manner to requests from the editorial board to provide source data, explanations, and clarifications of the manuscript, evidence of compliance with ethical standards and copyright certificates. If a decision to publish the article after substantial revision, authors must respond point by point to the reviewers' comments, systematically and in a timely manner, revise and resubmit their manuscript to the editorial office journal, meeting the stated deadline.
Fundamental errors in published papers
When an author discovers a fundamental error or inaccuracy in his or her own published material, he or she must promptly notify the journal's editorial board or publisher and assist them in having the article recalled or corrected. Suppose the editorial board of the journal or the publisher learns from a third party that a published article contains a material error. In that case, the author has a duty to recall or correct the article promptly or to provide the editorial board of the journal with evidence of the accuracy of the original article.
Conflict of interests
A conflict of interest is defined as a financial commitment or relationship that may affect the objectivity, integrity, or interpretation of the proposed manuscript.
All authors should disclose in their manuscripts any material conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that could be seen to influence the results of their research or the interpretation of their manuscripts. Both co-authors and any sources of financial support for a research project should be acknowledged. Examples of potential conflicts of interest, which must be disclosed, include a place of employment, consultancies, interests in commercial companies, fees received, expert reports paid, patent applications/registrations, grants, and other forms of research funding. All potential conflicts of interest should be identified as early as possible.
Reviewers and editors should withdraw from consideration of any manuscript if the declared conflict of interest would prevent them from making an impartial scientific judgment or evaluation. Reviewers may not review a manuscript if they do not approach it objectively. A reviewer or editor who is found to have a conflict but believes the same would not interfere with their neutral position should share it with the Editor-in-Chief. At the editorial board's discretion, they may be replaced by other reviewers and editors. Editorial decisions on manuscripts commissioned or requested by the Editor-in-Chief may not be made or approved by the Editor-in-Chief.
The following paragraph must certainly be included in the review invitation letter: “If you are aware or believe that you are aware of the author's identity and if you believe that there is a potential conflict of interest that may influence your decision because of your relationship with the author (e.g., in terms of close friendship or conflict/rivalry) or for any other reason, please declare it. Acceptance of our invitation is deemed to be free of any potential conflict of interest." The standard policy is not to use a reviewer if a conflict of interest is disclosed.
A manuscript submitted by an editor of the journal is handled by one of the other editors who is not from the same institution as the editor who submitted the manuscript. The other editor will select reviewers and make all decisions regarding the publication of the manuscript.
A manuscript submitted by an author for whom a potential conflict of interest can be identified and who is from the same institution as one of the editorial board members will be referred to another editorial board member. This editor selects reviewers and makes all decisions regarding the publication of the manuscript. If necessary, the Editor-in-Chief shall be consulted.
A manuscript submitted by a family member of one of the editorial board members or by an author whose relationship with one of the editors might raise suspicions of biased judgment (e.g., in terms of close friendship or conflict/rivalry) is submitted to another member of the editorial board. This editor selects reviewers and makes all decisions regarding the publication of the manuscript. If necessary, the Editor-in-Chief will be consulted.
Open Access Statement
We are committed to the rapid and global dissemination of high-quality research and practice, through Open Access (OA) and other means. In this way, we seek to maximise the impact and influence of our articles.
We pledge to maintain high ethical standards related to all aspects of the publication process, to provide a personable service to our authors, editors, and reviewers, and to aim toward the most effective propagation of our publications.
We strive towards fair, transparent, and sustainable Open Access models. We support the archiving of scholarly content and the accessibility of relevant data and datasets.
We believe that anyone should be able to publish OA, regardless of status, geographical location, or institutional affiliation. As such, we are committed to assisting our authors to overcome barriers to the publication of their work OA.