Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

ARADO Business Journal (ABJ) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics. The journal adheres to the principles set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The following statement defines the ethical responsibilities of authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher.

1. Author Responsibilities

Originality and Integrity

  • Authors must submit only unpublished, original work that is not currently under consideration by any other journal.
  • Submissions must achieve a similarity index of ≤20% (Turnitin) at the screening stage.
  • Any prior dissemination of the work (preprints on SSRN, conference proceedings, theses) must be disclosed at submission.

Authorship

  • Authorship is restricted to those who have made a substantial intellectual contribution to the work, in accordance with the CRediT taxonomy (Contributor Roles Taxonomy).
  • The corresponding author must obtain written consent from all co-authors prior to submission. A signed co-authorship form is required.
  • Any change to the authorship list after submission requires written approval from all listed authors and the Editor-in-Chief.

Ethical Compliance

  • Studies involving human participants must include the approval number of the relevant Institutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee.
  • Authors must disclose all sources of funding and any actual or potential conflicts of interest.
  • Authors must disclose the use of generative AI tools, indicating tool, version, and purpose, in the Methods section.

Post-Publication Obligations

  • Authors are responsible for promptly notifying the editorial office of any errors discovered after publication, via formal Erratum or Retraction requests submitted through OJS.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

Confidentiality

  • Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as privileged and confidential documents and may not share, discuss, or use any part of them prior to publication.
  • Manuscripts and review materials must be securely deleted after the review is completed.
  • Reviewers must not upload manuscripts (in whole or in part) to generative AI tools, as this constitutes a breach of confidentiality.

Objectivity

  • Reviews must be conducted objectively, focusing on scholarly merit. Personal criticism of authors is not acceptable.
  • Reviewers must promptly disclose any conflict of interest (recent collaboration, shared institution, supervisory relationship within the past 3 years) and decline the invitation if necessary.

Timeliness

  • Reviewers are expected to complete their assessment within the agreed timeframe (typically 30–45 days) or notify the editor immediately if this is not feasible.

Vigilance

  • Reviewers should alert the editor to any suspicion of plagiarism, text recycling, citation manipulation, data fabrication, or undisclosed AI-generated content.

3. Editorial Team Responsibilities

Editor-in-Chief

  • Oversees the double-blind peer review process, ensuring that each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.
  • Ensures geographic, institutional, and gender diversity in the selection of reviewers, with at least 30% of the reviewer pool drawn from non-Arab institutions.
  • Makes final editorial decisions based solely on scholarly merit, methodological rigor, and alignment with the journal's scope, independent of any commercial or political consideration.
  • Recuses himself/herself from handling submissions where a conflict of interest exists.

Section Editors

  • Monitor citation ethics and detect citation manipulation (e.g., citation cartels, coercive citation).
  • Ensure adherence to APA 7th edition referencing standards.
  • Verify the appropriateness of acknowledgements and disclosures.

Editorial Independence and Endogeny Limit

  • The editorial team is editorially independent from the publisher (ARADO). Editorial decisions are not influenced by ARADO's administrative or commercial interests.
  • Articles authored by editors, editorial board members, or reviewers of ABJ are subject to the same blinded peer review process and must be handled by an editor with no conflict of interest.
  • The proportion of articles authored by editors or board members in any single issue shall not exceed 25%.

4. Handling of Misconduct

Type of Misconduct

Editorial Action

Plagiarism

Immediate rejection and 3-year submission ban; institutional notification where appropriate.

Data fabrication or falsification

Rejection (or formal retraction post-publication) and notification of the author's institution.

Authorship disputes

Mediation through the ARADO Editorial Ethics Committee in line with COPE guidance.

Reviewer misconduct (breach of confidentiality, biased reviewing, conflict of interest)

Removal from the reviewer database and, where warranted, formal notification to the reviewer's institution.

Editorial misconduct

Investigation by the ARADO Ethics Committee with possible removal from the editorial board.

All cases of suspected misconduct are investigated using the relevant COPE flowcharts, with full opportunity for the accused party to respond before any final action.

5. Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

  • Corrections (Erratum): Issued for minor errors that do not affect the conclusions of the article.
  • Retractions: Issued for serious errors, plagiarism, or fraudulent data, in accordance with COPE retraction guidelines. Retracted articles remain accessible online with a clear retraction notice.
  • Expressions of Concern: Issued where investigation is ongoing or evidence is inconclusive.

6. Transparency Measures

  • Pre-publication: Similarity screening via Turnitin / iThenticate.
  • Disclosure: All published articles include statements on funding, conflicts of interest, ethical approvals, data availability, and use of AI tools (if any).
  • Post-publication: Optional opt-in to open peer review; revisions tracked in the OJS history.
  • Annual Transparency Report: Submission volume, acceptance rate, average review time, and reviewer/author demographics are published yearly.

7. Identifiers, Data Sharing, and Diversity

  • ORCID: A valid ORCID iD is required for all submitting and corresponding authors.
  • FAIR Data: Authors are encouraged to deposit supporting datasets in trusted repositories (e.g., Figshare, Zenodo, Mendeley Data) and to provide a Data Availability Statement.
  • Diversity Statement: ABJ is committed to fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion in its editorial board, reviewer pool, and authorship, and reports annually on its progress.