Publication Ethics

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal represents the integrity and quality of the work conducted by its authors and affiliated institutions. Therefore, Fortunate Business Review (FBR) establishes ethical standards for all parties involved in the publication process, including authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher.

FBR follows the principles and guidelines issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Editorial decisions must remain independent and must not be influenced by advertising, commercial income, sponsorship, reprint revenue, or other financial interests. When necessary, FBR may communicate and cooperate with other journals, institutions, or publishers in handling publication ethics matters.

1. Duties of the Editors

The editors of FBR are responsible for determining which submitted manuscripts should proceed to peer review and which articles are suitable for publication. Editorial decisions must be based on the academic quality, originality, relevance, validity, and contribution of the manuscript to readers and the scientific community.

Editors must evaluate manuscripts solely based on their intellectual and academic content. Authors must not be discriminated against based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic background, nationality, institutional affiliation, or political views.

Editors and editorial staff must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts. Information concerning a manuscript may only be shared with the corresponding author, assigned reviewers, prospective reviewers, editorial advisers, and the publisher when necessary.

Materials, data, information, or ideas contained in an unpublished manuscript must not be used by editors for personal research or other purposes without written permission from the author. Information obtained through the peer-review process must remain confidential and must not be used for personal benefit.

Editors must not handle manuscripts in which they have personal, professional, financial, or institutional conflicts of interest. In such cases, the manuscript must be assigned to another qualified editor.

Editors must require authors, reviewers, and other contributors to disclose any relevant conflicts of interest. When a conflict of interest is identified after publication, the journal may issue a correction, clarification, retraction, or other appropriate editorial notice.

FBR will investigate all credible allegations of unethical publication practices involving submitted or published articles. Such allegations must be addressed fairly and objectively, regardless of when the suspected misconduct is discovered.

2. Duties of the Reviewers

Peer reviewers assist editors in evaluating manuscripts and making publication decisions. Their comments may also help authors improve the quality, clarity, and accuracy of their work.

A reviewer who does not have the appropriate expertise to assess a manuscript or cannot complete the review within the specified period must promptly notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, discuss, reproduce, or share the manuscript with other parties without permission from the editor.

Reviews must be conducted objectively and professionally. Personal criticism, offensive remarks, and unsupported judgments regarding the authors are inappropriate. Reviewers should provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based comments.

Reviewers should identify relevant published studies that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement indicating that an argument, observation, method, or finding has previously been published should be supported by an appropriate reference.

Reviewers must inform the editor when they identify substantial similarities or overlap between the manuscript under review and another published or submitted work.

Unpublished information, data, or ideas obtained through the review process must not be used in a reviewer's own work without the author's written consent. Reviewers must also maintain the confidentiality of privileged information and must not use it for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers must decline to evaluate manuscripts when they have financial, institutional, collaborative, personal, or other conflicts of interest involving the authors, institutions, or subject matter of the manuscript.

3. Duties of the Authors

Authors must present an accurate, honest, and complete account of the research conducted. The manuscript should include sufficient information, data, references, and methodological details to allow other researchers to understand, evaluate, and, where appropriate, replicate the study.

Authors must ensure that all data and citations presented in the manuscript are accurate. Fabrication, falsification, manipulation of data, and deliberately misleading or inaccurate statements are considered unethical and are not acceptable.

Authors must submit original work. The use of another person's words, ideas, data, images, findings, or other intellectual contributions without proper acknowledgment constitutes plagiarism. Plagiarism, including copying, inappropriate paraphrasing, duplicate publication, and claiming another researcher's work as one's own, is strictly prohibited.

Authors must not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. Manuscripts describing substantially the same research should not be published in multiple journals or primary publications without appropriate justification, disclosure, and permission.

Information obtained through private communication, correspondence, discussion, or other confidential sources must not be used or reported without explicit written permission from the relevant source.

Authorship must be limited to individuals who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, analysis, or interpretation of the study. All listed authors must review and approve the final manuscript and agree to its submission to FBR.

Individuals who contributed to the research but do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged appropriately. Individuals who did not make a significant contribution must not be listed as authors.

Authors must disclose all financial, personal, professional, institutional, or other relationships that could influence, or appear to influence, the research and publication process. Sources of financial support must also be clearly stated in the manuscript.

When authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their submitted or published work, they must promptly inform the editor of FBR and cooperate in correcting, revising, or retracting the article when necessary.

4. Duties of the Publisher

The publisher of FBR is responsible for supporting the editorial team in maintaining the integrity, independence, and quality of the publication process.

The publisher must ensure that commercial interests, advertising, sponsorship, or other financial considerations do not influence editorial decisions.

The publisher will cooperate with the editors in investigating allegations of research or publication misconduct. Appropriate actions may include publishing corrections, expressions of concern, clarifications, retractions, or other notices in accordance with applicable ethical guidelines.

The publisher is committed to preserving the scholarly record and supporting continued access to published articles through appropriate electronic archiving and journal management practices.

5. Conflict of Interest

Fortunate Business Review is committed to ensuring transparency, objectivity, and integrity throughout the scholarly publication process. All authors, editors, and reviewers are required to disclose any financial, personal, professional, institutional, or other relationships that may influence or appear to influence their responsibilities in research, manuscript evaluation, and publication.

5.1. Authors

Authors must disclose all relevant conflicts of interest that could influence the research or its interpretation. These may include financial support, employment relationships, consultancy arrangements, personal relationships, or institutional affiliations.

All sources of research funding and financial support must be accurately acknowledged. Authors must provide a conflict of interest declaration, including a statement confirming the absence of conflicts when applicable.

5.2. Editors

Editors must make editorial decisions independently, based solely on the academic quality, originality, validity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.

Editors must not handle manuscripts involving personal, professional, financial, or institutional conflicts of interest. Such manuscripts must be assigned to another qualified editor to ensure an impartial editorial process.

5.3. Reviewers

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest involving the authors, institutions, research topics, or other relevant relationships.

Reviewers must decline review assignments when conflicts of interest may compromise their independence, objectivity, or professional judgment.

5.4. Disclosure and Management

Fortunate Business Review may request additional information or supporting documentation regarding declared or suspected conflicts of interest.

When a conflict of interest is identified, the editorial team will take appropriate action to maintain the integrity of the publication process. If an undisclosed conflict is discovered after publication, the journal may issue a correction, clarification, retraction, or other appropriate editorial notice in accordance with its publication ethics policy and relevant COPE guidelines.

6. Post-Publication Discussions

Fortunate Business Review supports constructive scholarly discussion and critical evaluation of published research to promote academic transparency, research integrity, and the continuous development of scientific knowledge.

6.1. Scholarly Discussion

Readers, researchers, and other members of the academic community may submit scholarly comments, questions, or evidence-based criticisms concerning articles published in Fortunate Business Review.

Discussions must be relevant to the published research, academically constructive, and supported by appropriate arguments or evidence. Personal attacks, defamatory statements, and unsupported allegations are not permitted.

6.2. Submission and Editorial Assessment

Post-publication comments or concerns may be submitted to the editorial office through the journal's official communication channels.

The editorial team will assess the relevance, validity, and scholarly merit of the submitted comments. Where appropriate, the journal may request additional clarification or supporting documentation before determining whether further action is necessary.

6.3. Author Responses

Authors of published articles may be invited to respond to scholarly comments, questions, or criticisms concerning their work.

Responses should provide constructive explanations, clarification, or supporting evidence. The editorial team may facilitate communication between the parties to ensure that discussions remain objective and academically appropriate.

6.4. Corrections and Editorial Actions

When post-publication discussions identify significant errors, inaccuracies, or concerns regarding research integrity, Fortunate Business Review may conduct further editorial assessment.

Depending on the nature and severity of the issue, appropriate actions may include publishing corrections, clarifications, expressions of concern, retractions, or other editorial notices.

6.5. Publication Ethics

All post-publication discussions and related editorial actions will be handled fairly, objectively, and in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy and relevant Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.

Fortunate Business Review is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record and supporting responsible academic dialogue after publication.

7. Corrections and Retractions

Fortunate Business Review is committed to maintaining the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of the scholarly record. When significant errors, unreliable findings, or concerns regarding publication ethics are identified after publication, the journal will take appropriate editorial action in accordance with relevant COPE guidance.

7.1. Corrections

A correction may be issued when an article contains errors or inaccuracies that require clarification but do not invalidate the overall findings or conclusions of the research.

Such errors may include inaccuracies in data presentation, figures, tables, author information, or other elements that affect the accuracy of the published record.

Corrections will be clearly identified, linked to the original article, and made publicly accessible. Where necessary, the original article will also include a notice referring readers to the published correction.

7.2. Retractions

A retraction may be issued when the findings or conclusions of a published article are substantially unreliable or when serious violations of research or publication ethics are established.

Grounds for retraction may include:

• Fabrication, falsification, or serious manipulation of research data.
• Major methodological or analytical errors that invalidate the findings.
• Plagiarism or substantial unauthorized reproduction of previously published material.
• Redundant or duplicate publication without appropriate disclosure or justification.
• Research conducted or published in violation of applicable ethical requirements.
• Other serious concerns that undermine the reliability or integrity of the published work.

A retraction notice will clearly identify the affected article, explain the reasons for retraction, and remain publicly accessible. The original article will generally remain available in the scholarly record, clearly marked as retracted, unless exceptional legal, privacy, or other compelling circumstances require its removal.

7.3. Expressions of Concern

An expression of concern may be issued when credible concerns arise regarding the integrity or reliability of a published article, but the available evidence is insufficient to reach a definitive conclusion, or an investigation is ongoing and its outcome remains uncertain.

Such notices will identify the relevant article and explain the nature of the concern without presenting unverified allegations as established facts.

When additional information becomes available, the journal may update or replace the expression of concern with an appropriate correction, retraction, or other editorial notice.

7.4. Editorial Procedures

Concerns regarding published articles may be reported by authors, readers, reviewers, institutions, or other relevant parties through the journal's official communication channels.

When a concern is raised, the editorial team will:

1. Conduct an initial assessment of the reported issue and its supporting evidence.
2. Contact the corresponding author and, where appropriate, other authors to request clarification or documentation.
3. Consult independent experts, relevant institutions, or other appropriate parties when necessary.
4. Assess the findings impartially and determine an appropriate editorial response.
5. Publish a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other editorial notice when warranted.

Authors will ordinarily be given an opportunity to respond to concerns before a final editorial decision is made. However, the journal may take necessary action to protect the scholarly record even when authors do not respond or disagree with the editorial decision.

7.5. Transparency and Accessibility

All correction, retraction, and expression of concern notices will be clearly identified and linked to the relevant published article whenever applicable.

Editorial notices will remain accessible to readers to preserve transparency and the integrity of the scholarly record.

Fortunate Business Review will handle post-publication corrections and retractions fairly, consistently, and in accordance with its publication ethics policy and applicable COPE guidance.

8. Allegations of Research Misconduct

Fortunate Business Review (FBR) is committed to addressing allegations of research misconduct fairly, objectively, confidentially, and in accordance with the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All credible allegations concerning submitted or published manuscripts will be considered, regardless of when the alleged misconduct is reported or identified.

8.1. Types of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct and related publication ethics violations may include, but are not limited to:

• Fabrication: Inventing research data, observations, or findings that were not obtained through legitimate research procedures.
• Falsification: Manipulating research materials, methods, data, or results in a manner that misrepresents the research findings.
• Plagiarism: Using another individual's words, ideas, data, or intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment.
• Duplicate or Redundant Publication: Publishing substantially overlapping research without appropriate disclosure, justification, or permission.
• Authorship Misconduct: Improperly adding, removing, or attributing authorship, including guest, gift, or ghost authorship.
• Research Ethics Violations: Conducting or reporting research without required ethical approval, informed consent, or appropriate protection of confidential information where applicable.
• Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest: Failing to disclose relevant relationships or interests that could influence the research or publication process.
• Peer-Review Manipulation: Attempting to compromise the independence or integrity of the peer-review process, including through fabricated reviewer identities or inappropriate influence.

8.2. Reporting Allegations

Concerns regarding potential research misconduct may be reported by authors, reviewers, readers, researchers, institutions, or other parties through the journal's official editorial communication channels.

Reports should provide sufficient information to identify the manuscript or published article and explain the nature of the alleged misconduct. Supporting evidence, documentation, or relevant references should be included whenever available.

Fortunate Business Review will consider allegations based on their credibility and supporting evidence. Anonymous reports may also be considered when sufficient verifiable information is provided.

8.3. Initial Assessment and Investigation

Upon receiving an allegation, the editorial team will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the concern falls within the journal's responsibilities and warrants further examination.

When appropriate, the editorial team may:

1. Examine the manuscript, published article, and available supporting evidence.
2. Request clarification, research data, or relevant documentation from the authors.
3. Consult independent experts or editorial advisers when specialized assessment is required.
4. Contact the authors' affiliated institutions or relevant research integrity bodies when institutional investigation is necessary.
5. Suspend editorial processing or publication while serious concerns remain unresolved.

All assessments will be conducted impartially, with due consideration of the available evidence and the rights of the individuals involved.

8.4. Confidentiality and Fairness

Fortunate Business Review will handle allegations confidentially to the extent reasonably possible and will limit the disclosure of sensitive information to individuals or institutions directly involved in assessing or investigating the concern.

Individuals against whom allegations are made will ordinarily be given an opportunity to provide explanations or supporting evidence before an editorial decision is reached.

The journal will avoid making premature conclusions and will distinguish unverified allegations from substantiated findings.

8.5. Editorial Actions and Outcomes

Depending on the nature of the concern, available evidence, and outcome of the assessment or investigation, Fortunate Business Review may take appropriate editorial action, including:

• Requesting explanations, corrections, or additional supporting documentation.
• Rejecting a manuscript when serious misconduct or publication ethics violations are established.
• Suspending editorial consideration while further investigation is conducted.
• Publishing a correction or clarification when appropriate.
• Issuing an expression of concern when substantial concerns remain unresolved.
• Retracting a published article when its findings are unreliable or serious publication ethics violations warrant retraction.
• Referring the matter to relevant institutions or research integrity authorities when necessary.

Editorial actions will be proportionate to the nature and severity of the identified problem and will follow the journal's publication ethics and corrections and retractions policies.

8.6. Institutional Responsibility and COPE Guidance

Fortunate Business Review recognizes that formal investigations into research misconduct may fall within the responsibilities of the authors' institutions or other authorized research integrity bodies.

The journal may cooperate with relevant institutions and request updates when institutional findings are necessary to determine an appropriate editorial response.

Fortunate Business Review will not independently determine employment, disciplinary, or institutional sanctions that fall outside its editorial authority.

All allegations of research misconduct will be addressed in accordance with the journal's editorial policies and relevant COPE Core Practices, with the primary objective of protecting the integrity and reliability of the scholarly record.