Malpractice Statement and Publication Ethics

Malpractice Statement and Publication Ethics
Institute of business studies and Leadership (IBL), Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan
(AWKUM) prime focus is the dedication of its efforts to maintain high standards of academic of
the research journal. The publisher has no political backing (only scholarly) with the aim and
devotion to show unbiased approach to any political party or ideology (religious, national,
ideological), and completely based on research. Thus IBL and AWKUM pledge to uphold a high
ethical standard and be absolutely impartial to anyone. Therefore, IBL, AWKUM expect similar
standards from the editors (editorial board) and reviewers (national and international). In the
same manner Honesty, originality and fair dealing on the part of authors, and fairness, objectivity
and confidentiality on the part of editors and reviewers are among the critical values that enable
us to achieve the journal aim. The publisher respects the codes of conduct and international
standards established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and available free of
charge on its website ( http://publicationethics.org/ ). Any behavior against publication
ethics when proven will be treated as publication malpractice and beyond doubt is unacceptable.

Mandatory confirmations for author(s) of JBT (IBL, AWKUM) are as follows.
Originality of work must be maintained by author(s) while submitting manuscript(s).

We encourage that only unpublished manuscripts should be submitted.

Submission to multiple journals is unacceptable as it is unethical to submit a manuscript to more
than one journal concurrently.

The author(s) must clearly state any conflict of interest.

Acknowledge the sources of data used in the development of the manuscript.

The authors(s) must make sure that all errors discovered in the manuscript after submission must
be swiftly communicated to the Editor.

Mandatory confirmations for reviewer(s) of JBT (IBL, AWKUM) are as follows.

The reviewers must confirm that all manuscripts are reviewed in fair way and unbiased based on
the intellectual content of the manuscript regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion and nor
any political values of author(s).

The reviewers must be held accountable for that any observed conflict of interest during the
review process must be communicated to the Editor.

The reviewers are responsible to maintaining confidentiality pertaining to the manuscript.

The reviewers are responsible for communication of any information that may be the reason for
the rejection of publication of a manuscript to the Editor.

Mandatory confirmations for reviewer(s) of JBT (IBL, AWKUM) are as follows.

The editors must confirm that all manuscripts are evaluated fairly and in unbiased way on the
intellectual content of the paper regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, nor political values
of authors.

The editors must ensure that the information pertaining to manuscripts are kept confidential.

The editors must confirm that any observed conflict of interest pertaining to manuscripts must be
disclosed.

The Editorial Board takes responsibility for making publication decisions for submitted
manuscripts based on the reviewer’s evaluation of the manuscript, policies of the journal editorial board and legal restrain acting against plagiarism, libel and copyright infringement.

Unbiased:
Editors have the duty to judge manuscripts only on their scholarly merits. Editors should operate
without personal or ideological favoritism or malice.

Conflict of Interest:
Editors should avoid any practice that gives rise to a conflict of interest or the reasonable
appearance of one.

Independence:
Editor have the responsibility for acceptance or rejection of manuscripts rests with the Editors.
Doing so normally will be based on the advice from Reviewers; however, manuscripts that
Editors deem clearly inappropriate may be rejected without such review.

Confidentiality:
Editors and their editorial staff including student workers shall not disclose information about a
manuscript to anyone other than Reviewers and Authors.

Review Quality:
Normally, a minimum of two Reviewers are acceptable whereas three Reviewers may be invited
to comment on a manuscript. Authors may request that certain Reviewers not be used, but this
decision should be on the part of Editor's discretion.

Timeliness:
Editors must ensure the timely review of all manuscripts and respond promptly to inquiries from
Authors about the status of a review.

Decision Quality:
Editors should write high-quality editorial letters that integrate reviewer comments and offer
additional suggestions to the Author. Editors should not send a decision letter, without
explanation, attached to a set of reviewer comments.

Accuracy:
An Editor presented with convincing evidence by a Reviewer that the substance or conclusion of
an unpublished manuscript is erroneous should promptly inform the Author. If similar evidence
is presented for a published manuscript, the Editor should ensure prompt publication of a
correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as appropriate.

Authority:
The Editor-in-Chief should respect the Journal's constituents (readers, Authors, Reviewers,
Editors, editorial staff and publisher), and work to ensure the honesty and integrity of the
Journal's contents and continuous improvement in journal quality.