ETHICAL STANDARDS IN PUBLISHING, WHISTLEBLOWING, AND MALPRACTICE

As the publisher of the Economic Thought journal, the Economic Research Institute at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (ERI-BAS) upholds the highest ethical standards and best practices at every stage of the publishing process. The journal’s Editorial Board strictly adheres to the guidance set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

DUTIES OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD

The Editorial Board of the Economic Thought journal adheres to best practices in scholarly publishing presented in the Ethics Toolkit for a Successful Editorial Office of the COPE.

Decisions to publish a submitted manuscript

The Editorial Board of the Economic Thought journal determines which submitted manuscripts are accepted for publication.

When necessary, the Board may seek input from additional editors or reviewers before making its final decision.

Non-discrimination

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.

Privacy

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

Members of the Editorial Board must not use unpublished materials, ideas, or data from submitted manuscripts for their research without the explicit written consent of the author(s). Any confidential information obtained during peer review must remain confidential and shall not be exploited for personal advantage.

Editorial Board members must recuse themselves from reviewing submissions if they have conflicts of interest, including competitive, collaborative, or institutional ties to the authors or affiliated organizations.

Additionally, the Editorial Board requires authors to disclose any potential competing interests at submission. Should undisclosed competing interests emerge after publication, the Board reserves the right to issue corrections or retractions as appropriate.

Interference and cooperation in investigations

The ERI-BAS, in collaboration with the Editorial Board, will take appropriate action upon receiving a complaint regarding ethical misconduct in a submitted manuscript or published material. Such measures typically involve contacting the author(s) to assess the validity of the claims. If necessary, notifications may also be sent to relevant institutions or research organizations. Should the complaint be substantiated, corrective actions will be taken, which may include publishing a correction, rebuttal, or other suitable measures.

A decision must be reached—and action taken—on any reported ethical violations in editorial activity, even if the misconduct is identified years after publication.

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

Reviewers for the Economic Thought journal adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers in all aspects of their evaluation process.

Contributing to the decisions of the Editorial Board

Reviews guide editorial decisions and facilitate communication between authors and editors to improve manuscripts. As an essential component of scholarly communication, the Economic Thought journal editorial board believes that scholars who submit to academic publications have a responsibility to participate in the peer review process. 

Preparedness

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.

Confidentiality

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. Reviewers should recuse themselves when conflicts of interest exist due to competition, collaboration, or other relationships with authors, their organizations, or institutions connected to the manuscript.

DUTIES OF AUTHORS

Standards for submitting manuscripts for publication

Authors should accurately describe their research methodology and clearly articulate the significance of their findings. 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 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 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 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

Works of others used in the manuscript must be properly cited. Authors must cite publications that influenced the nature and content of their submitted work. Information obtained privately—through conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties—may not be used or published without explicit written permission from the source. Similarly, information obtained while providing confidential services, such as reviewing manuscripts or grant proposals, must not be used without explicit written permission from the author of those materials.

 

Authorship of the manuscript

Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the concept, design, execution, or interpretation of the research. All individuals who have significantly contributed to the study should be listed as co-authors. Others who contributed to specific aspects of the research project should be acknowledged appropriately or included in 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 all sources of financial support for the 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 promptly 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. 

When an article is conditionally accepted pending substantial revision, authors must:

1. Address all reviewers' comments point-by-point in their response letter

2. Systematically incorporate all required revisions into the manuscript

3. Resubmit the revised version by the specified deadline.

Fundamental errors in published papers

When authors discover a fundamental error or inaccuracy in their published work, they must promptly notify the journal's editorial board or publisher and cooperate with them to retract or correct the article. 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 must 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 interest

A conflict of interest is defined as a financial commitment or relationship that may affect the objectivity, integrity, or interpretation of the 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 are 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 rapidly and globally disseminating high-quality research and practice through Open Access 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, provide personable service to our authors, editors, and reviewers, and aim to propagate our publications as effectively as possible.

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 Open Access, regardless of status, geographical location, or institutional affiliation. As such, we are committed to helping our authors overcome barriers to publishing their work as Open Access.