Responsibilities of the Editorial Board

Members of the Editorial Board are an indispensable and important asset for Journals. They help in guiding the Journals towards development and success. Editorial Board for the Management and Finance Bulletin comprises the Editor-in-Chief, Editors and Reviewers.

Responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief:

  • The Editor-in-Chief should act if he/ she suspects misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought before him/ her. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
  • The Editor-in-Chief should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct; they should investigate thoroughly before making a decision.
  • The Editor-in-Chief shall oversee investigations into suspected publication misconduct, ensure fair and confidential handling of allegations, and take appropriate corrective actions in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy.
  • The Editor-in-Chief should encourage and be willing to consider valid criticisms of work published in their journal.
  • The Editor-in-Chief should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further.
  • It is the duty of the Editor-in-Chief to check the final draft of the Journal.
  • The Editor-in-Chief shall provide strategic guidance for improving the journal's quality, visibility, indexing, and international reputation.
  • The Editor-in-Chief should help in International recognition & collaboration with various Universities and Research Institutions.
  • The Editor-in-Chief shall convene and chair periodic Editorial Board meetings to review journal performance, discuss editorial policies, address publication ethics, and plan future initiatives.

Responsibilities of the Editors:

  • Editors should ensure that competent Reviewers are selected for reviewing manuscripts and encourage Reviewers to produce polite, admirable and early reviews.
  • Editors should ensure that the peer review process is conducted evenly and the standard and quality of the content of the Journal is maintained.
  • Editors should give impartial consideration to each manuscript submitted for consideration for publication, without considering the religion, race, sex, nationality, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s). Editors’ recommendation to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the peer reviews and their own view on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, the study’s validity and its relevance to the scope of the journal.
  • Editors should require Reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
  • Editor's information or correspondence about a manuscript should not be shared with anyone outside of the peer review process.
  • Editors should monitor the performance of peer reviewers and take steps to ensure this is of a high standard. Editors should encourage reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, inappropriate data manipulation and presentation).
  • If a journal editor receives a claim that a submitted article is under consideration elsewhere or has already been published, then he or she has a duty to investigate the matter with Open Access Text.
  • Editors shall promptly report suspected ethical concerns or publication misconduct to the Editor-in-Chief and cooperate during the investigation.
  • Any data or analysis presented in a submitted manuscript should not be discussed or used in a journal editor's own research except with the consent of the author.
  • Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct must provide all the information needed for the investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way until a successful decision or conclusion is reached. Editorial board members must guarantee prompt responses to the complainants by taking action and correcting the flaws.
  • An initial decision should be taken by the editor, who should consult with or seek advice from the publisher, if appropriate. Evidence should be gathered while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.
  • Editors should recommend improvements in editorial processes, peer review quality, and manuscript standards.
  • Editors are expected to actively participate in Editorial Board meetings and contribute to editorial discussions.

       Responsibilities of the Reviewers:

  • Reviewers are expected to provide an evaluation of the manuscript, but they should avoid comments that are rude or exasperating and behave responsibly and ethically.
  • Reviewers are required to respond quickly to the invitation to review a manuscript.
  • Reviewers are expected to send their reviews within a week of receiving the manuscript. The reviews should be completed by the deadline indicated in the invitation. If, for some reason, the Reviewers are unable to submit the Review Report in time, the reviewers are expected to inform the Editor immediately.
  • Reviewers are required to review the manuscript and give their analysis using the Reviewer Form provided to them.
  • When making a final recommendation on the manuscript, the Reviewer should choose one of the following options:

(1) Publish As it is: When the article fulfils all of the requirements and is ready for publication.

 (2) Major Changes: When the article is not according to the parameters set in the "Author Guidelines". Major changes are to be made in the manuscript.

(3) Minor Changes: When the article is not according to the parameters set in the "Author Guidelines". Minor changes are to be made in the manuscript.

 (4) Reject & Resubmit: When the article in its current form is not suitable for publication and requires significant revision for more than 50% of the manuscript. However, there is always a possibility for improvements and in this case, the reviewer should give detailed instructions to the author for making corrections and resubmitting it afresh.

  • In order to maintain the integrity of the review process, the reviewers should not discuss the reviewed manuscript with anyone without specific permission from the Editor. In case they take help from someone during the review process, they should mention the name of that person in the Review Report.
  • The reviewers should not copy, share or disseminate any information concerning the manuscript for any purpose, including advancement of their own research.
  • If any explanation from the author/authors is needed, the Reviewer should include their query in the Comments section of the Review Report.
  • Reviewers should be objective while conducting reviews, and the comments &recommendations should be supported with relevant arguments.
  • The reviewers should reveal any potential competing interest that may bias the review of the submitted manuscript (including any financial interest in the publication or non-publication of the manuscript; a recent or ongoing collaboration with the authors; a history of dispute with the authors).
  • If the reviewer is currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or has been a recent (e.g., within the past 3 years) mentor, mentee, close collaborator, or joint grant holder, the invitation to review the manuscript should be rejected.
  • Potential Reviewers should provide accurate information (their name, designation, affiliation, email id, mobile no., etc.) which is required for their empanelment in the Editorial Board. In case of any change in job or contact information, they should promptly inform the editorial office.
  • Reviewers should immediately notify the Editor if they suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or any other ethical concern.
  • Reviewers may be invited to participate in reviewer training sessions, workshops, or Editorial Board meetings when appropriate.