The Journal of Human Resource Management (JHRM; ISSN 2453-7683) follows the highest standards of publication ethics and takes feasible procedures against any publication-related misconduct.
The JHRM is highly committed to meeting ethical principles at all stages of the publication process. In doing so, the JHRM follows recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (PEMS; https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidlines) and the policies on how to manage challenging situations related to ethical misconduct according to the Publishing Ethics Resources Kit (PERK; https://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk).
The key ethical expectations of the JHRM and its stakeholders are:
PES 1. Authors
PES 1.1 Plagiarism, redundant publication, text recycling and referencing
The JHRM does not accept any type of plagiarism. Manuscripts sent to the JHRM should be original and should not be submitted for publication purposes, in press, or published elsewhere. Where some portions of the content overlap with already published or submitted content, Author(s) have to acknowledge and cite those sources.
Citations of all sources of information, on the basis of which the manuscript was written, have to be in line with formatting standards set by the JHRM (see http://www.jhrm.eu/instructions-regarding-the-article-format/). Author(s) have to indicate all cited sources in the “References” section of the manuscript. Author(s) may not indicate any source in the “References” section that was not cited within the text of the manuscript itself.
Author(s) are asked to maintain accurate records of data associated with the submitted manuscript, to supply or provide access to these data, on reasonable request, and to obtain permission to reproduce any content from other sources.
PES 1.2 Authorship
In respect to authorship issue, the JHRM adheres to the definition of authorship by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, ICMJE (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html). In JHRM, author(s) agree to limit the authorship only to those who have made a significant contribution to the manuscript itself. The “ghost” authorship (people who have made a significant contribution to the paper, but are not listed as authors) or the “gift” authorship (people who did not make significant contribution to the paper, but are listed as authors) are strictly prohibited. Some examples of activities that alone do not qualify a contributor for authorship are acquisition of research funding; supervision of a research group, general administrative support; and writing assistance such as technical editing, language editing, and proofreading. Contributors who do not meet all criteria for authorship, as defined by the ICMJE, should not be listed as authors; however, they can be acknowledged in a separate section of the manuscript under the heading “Acknowledgment” located at the end of the article prior to the “References” section.
PES 1.3 Fees and access
No submission-, publication- or processing-related fees are charged in the JHRM. The JHRM publishes two issues per year in an open access mode which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution (further information at http://www.jhrm.eu/).
PES 1.3.1 Copyright, Publishing Agreement, funding information, competing interests, and informed consent
All authors submitting a paper to the JHRM confirm by signing the Publishing Agreement that they accept all ethical and publishing standards of the JHRM (see http://www.jhrm.eu/publishing-agreement-copyright/).
All funding information (funding related to the respective research/article) should be clearly stated by the Author(s) in a separate section under the title “Funding”, located at the end of the article prior to the “References” section.
Authors should declare any potential conflicts of interest, if applicable (e.g. authors have a competing interest that could have an undue influence on their duties at any stage during the publication process).
All procedures performed in the respective research involving human participants have to be in accordance with the ethical standards and authors should ensure that any studies involving human (or animal) subjects conform to national, local and institutional laws and requirements (e.g., WMA Declaration of Helsinki). An informed consent has to be obtained from human participants included in the study. Author(s) have to respect the participants’ right for privacy.
PES 1.5 Cooperation with Editors and Reviewers
Author(s) agree to notify the JHRM Editor-in-chief as well as the Executive editor without any delay in case the Author(s) discover error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, and to cooperate with the Editors to correct the manuscript.
Author(s) have an obligation to cooperate through the whole review process with JHRM Editors, to read carefully the review results, to consider all Reviewers’ comments with respect, to amend or revise the manuscript where necessary or applicable and to return the revised version of the manuscript to the Executive editor on time and in the requested quality.
PES 2. Reviewers and review process
PES 2.1 Nature of the review process
All of the JHRM content is subjected to an expert double-blind peer review, through which Author(s) obtain professional and expert advice on individual manuscripts. Every paper is reviewed by at least two independent Reviewers in order to guarantee high standard and quality of each published paper. The JHRM guarantees that the peer review and publication process is fair, just and objective (for basic principles of the review process in JHRM see http://www.jhrm.eu/reviewers-process/).
PES 2.2 Reviewers’ professionalism
Reviewers’ judgments and findings in the review process have to be objective. Their mission is to contribute to the quality decision-making process, and to assist in improving the quality of the published papers by reviewing the manuscript objectively and in a timely manner. In case the Reviewer is not sure whether he or she will return the review within the requested deadline, he/she should inform without delay the Executive editor.
Also, Reviewer should only agree to review manuscripts for which he or she has the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment.
Personal criticism of the Author(s) is considered inappropriate.
Reviewers should support their views with solid arguments and supporting references as necessary.
Reviewers should pay attention to ethical issues like text recycling, redundant (previously published) texts, appropriateness of approvals/consents obtained, or any indications that data have been fabricated or otherwise manipulated.
Reviewers should not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript without first obtaining permission from the JHRM. They should ensure their review is based on the merits of the work and not influenced, either positively or negatively, by any conflicting considerations or by intellectual biases.
Reviews have to be objective and constructive and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. Reviewers thus should avoid general statements, and should be specific in what should be done by the Author(s) to raise the quality of the manuscript. Reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited. Reviewers should not suggest that Author(s) include citations to the Reviewer’s (or their associates’) work merely to increase the Reviewer’s (or their associates’) citation count or to enhance the visibility of their or their associates’ work. They should follow JHRM’s instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them.
PES 2.3 Reviewers’ conflict of interest
Reviewers have to declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the JHRM (Executive editor or Editor-in-chief) if they are unsure whether something constitutes a competing interest. In case they would like to propose another Reviewer for the given manuscript, they should ensure suggestions for alternative Reviewers are based on expertness.
Reviewers should be self-reflective, for instance, they should decline to do the review if they feel unable to provide a fair and unbiased review. Furthermore, they should decline to review if they have been involved with any of the work in the manuscript or its reporting; and if asked to review a manuscript that is very similar to one they have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.
Reviewers should notify the Executive editor immediately and seek advice if they discover either a conflicting interest that wasn’t apparent when they agreed to the review or anything that might prevent them providing a fair and unbiased review. For example, if they suspect the identity of the Author(s), they should notify the Executive editor if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
PES 2.4 Confidentiality of the reviewed articles
All reviewed articles should be treated confidentially prior to their publication. Reviewers must keep all manuscript and review details confidential. Reviewers also have to maintain the confidentiality of any information related to the manuscripts supplied by the Editors.
PES 3. Editor-in-chief, Executive editor and Editorial board
PES 3.1 Main governing bodies of JHRM
The JHRM updates regularly any changes in the Editorial board (see http://www.jhrm.eu/editorial-board-2/). Members of the JHRM Editorial board are carefully chosen as recognized experts in their fields of science and expertize. The JHRM provides information also on the professional background of the Editor-in-chief (see http://www.jhrm.eu/lubica-bajzikova/) and the Executive editor (see http://www.jhrm.eu/anna-lasakova/).
PES 3.2 Editorial obligations
Editor-in-chief, Executive editor and members of the Editorial board of JHRM are obliged to act in line with the basic ethical principles of JHRM. They have to be responsible, just, objective and open-minded, without discrimination anybody on any grounds. They should handle all manuscripts solely on their academic merit and without any commercial influence. They should be aware that all communication has to be led in a manner of the highest ethical principles, in particular according the principles of objectivity, promptness, transparency of the evaluation- and publication-related processes and confidentiality. More specifically, the principles that have to be upheld are: Constructive criticism; Open communication; Logical argumentation; Adherence to set timelines and deadlines; Fair evaluation and high-quality publication process; Complete, accurate and self-contained information provided to all JHRM stakeholders.
Regarding the reviews, if the Editors handling a manuscript decide themselves to provide a review of that manuscript, they have to do this transparently and not under the facade of an anonymous review. In respect to submissions, it is expected that the Editor-in-chief and the Executive editor should be especially careful when submitting their own work to the JHRM. It is their responsibility to exert every effort to minimize any bias in the review process by having another associate Editor to handle the whole peer review procedure independently of the Editor-in-chief and the Executive editor. The process should be absolutely anonymous, ensuring that the identity of Editors-Authors and the Reviewers are kept confidential. Similar caution has to be upheld in case the members of the Editorial board wish to submit their manuscripts to the JHRM.
PES 3.3 Procedures in the event of complaints and misconduct
In case of complaints, the JHRM adopts and follows specific procedures in the event of complaints of an ethical or conflict nature, in accordance with the formal policies, especially in accordance with the COPE “Retraction guidelines” (see https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines_0.pdf).
All complaints are investigated. Documentation associated with any such complaints should be retained.
Editors solicit and ask relevant stakeholders to report any misconduct and unethical behaviour that should be brought to attention of the Editors. Their decisions are made solely based on solid evidence and information. Editors commit to gather evidence on reported issues while avoiding spreading any allegations. Editors will first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. Thus, Editors are obliged to give them a reasonable opportunity to respond to any complaints. If the reply is unsatisfactorily, Editors are allowed to seek advice and counselling to the respective case of misconduct by asking relevant employers or other institutions to investigate the case.
In case the JHRM has published any unreliable information, the Editors have to correct or retracted this as soon as possible.
In case Editors are asked to cooperate with other institutions or investigators of publication misconduct, they should be ready to promptly cooperate and respond to questions about alleged misconduct. These standards apply also to submissions that the JHRM rejected in the review process (did not intent to publish).
The JHRM Editors declare that before bringing any decision over sanctions (disciplinary procedures), all complaints and cases of alleged misconduct will be thoroughly investigated and backed up by solid evidence. Sanctions for proven unethical conduct might be applied separately or in conjunction: i. A letter of explanation (and education) to those who behaved unethically; ii. A written reprimand; iii. A letter to the relevant employer, head of institution or funding body; iv. Publication of information with full details of the misconduct on the JHRM website; v. Refusal to cooperate in any form with those who behaved unethically, for a stated period. In case the Editors were handling a case of serious misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, redundant publication), formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper from the scientific literature, informing other Editors and the indexing authorities will follow.
*Note: Full information on the JHRM publisher, aims, scope and indexing/abstracting are at: http://www.jhrm.eu/.