top of page
Abstract Record

Journal of 
World economy: Transformations & transitions
ISSN 2792-3851



Quick Access:

I.    Author's Responsibility

II.  Editorial Policy

III. Editors’ Obligations & Responsibilities

IV. Recommendation for Reviewers




Publication Ethics and Editorial Policy

ERUDITUS®, the publisher of “Journal of World Economy: Transformations & Transitions” states its commitment to the present Publication Ethics & Editorial Policy to ensure that all published articles in the JOWETT meet academic and ethical requirements. The Publisher and Editors follow the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Core Practices.

I. Author's Responsibility

All authors, wishing to publish their articles in JOWETT shall acknowledge and abide by the following Publication Ethics:

1.     Originality & Citations

1.1. All submitted manuscripts must be original work that is not submitted to any other journal, in any country, in any languages, or under consideration for publication in another form, such as a monograph or chapter of a book. Authors of submitted papers are obligated not to submit their paper for publication elsewhere until an editorial decision is rendered on their submission.

1.2. Authors must confirm that there was a full consensus of all authors to submit a paper and that the submitted version was approved by all authors.

1.3. Usage of previously published works of other authors must be cited appropriately. Copying text, ideas, images, or data from another source – even from the authors' own publications – without giving any credit to the original source shall be considered plagiarism.

1.4. Authors must assure that the submitted article and associated materials are original, not infringing on the copyright of anyone.

1.5. If an article includes already published figures or images, authors are obliged to obtain the necessary permission from the copyright holder to publish them under the CC-BY license.

1.6. Image files must not be manipulated or adjusted in any way that could lead to misinterpretation of the information provided by the original image.

1.7. Authors should not engage in excessive self-citation, and must avoid citing advertisements or advertorial material.

1.8. Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and to provide the editorial team with required data/details or clarification. Ignoring editorial queries or providing them, but with unreasonable delay, may lead to rejection.


1.9. All authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.

2.     Authorship

2.1. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research. Authorship in accordance with the ICMJE recommendations is based on the following four criteria:


1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND

2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND

3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND

4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

2.2. Contributors who meet fewer than all 4 of the above criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should be acknowledged. Examples of activities that alone (without other contributions) do not qualify a contributor for authorship are acquisition of funding; general supervision of a research group or general administrative support; and writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, and proofreading.

Authors are required to make a statement of authorship, which includes:

• Attestation that each author fulfils the authorship criteria laid out in the journal’s requirements;

• A declaration that no other individuals deserving of authorship have been omitted;

• A statement of the contributions of each author;

• A declaration that the corresponding author takes responsibility for the integrity of those contributions.

Information regarding authors’ contributions will be included in the published article.


2.3. The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process. The corresponding author typically ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, and disclosures of relationships and activities are properly completed and reported, although these duties may be delegated to one or more co-authors. The corresponding author should be available throughout the submission and peer review process to respond to editorial queries in a timely way, and should be available after publication to respond to critiques of the work and cooperate with any requests from the journal for data or additional information should questions about the paper arise after publication. 

3.     Declaration of Interests


All authors, while submitting their papers, must disclose any existing or potential conflicts of interest along with any relationships that could influence the content or bias their work, including financial, non-financial and competing interests.

The declaration of interests shall be included in the manuscript, and if there is no conflict of interest, it must be stated clearly that “The authors declare no conflicts of interest”.

4.     Funding Disclosure


All sources of funding of the research and/or preparation of the article should be disclosed. Authors must identify the organizations, institutions, or people who provided financial support.

The information about funding bodies must be included in the article. Otherwise, it should be stated that “The research did not receive any external funding.”

5.     Accuracy of Research


All submitted articles must consist of a well-researched subject, with objective and comprehensive discussion based on data retrieved from competent sources or generated by experiments or observations without any manipulations.


Publishing data or conclusions that were not generated appropriately, but, instead, through data manipulation, data invention, or falsification is considered fraud.

6.     Data Availability 


Authors should make sure that the research objects associated with their publications are openly available, unless there is ethical, legal or privacy issues. Data and methods used in the research need to be presented in sufficient detail, so that other researchers can replicate the work. Data Availability provides details regarding where relevant data can be found, including links to the publicly archived datasets analysed or generated during the study. This includes research data, software, and methodologies enabling peer reviewers to better assess the foundations of claims made and enabling the research community and wider public to similarly validate authors’ works. Authors should clarify if the above-mentioned data are available via public links, upon request, or provided as supplementary material.


7.     Inclusive language & objectivity

According to the Linguistic Society of America, inclusive language acknowledges diversity, conveys respect to all people, is sensitive to differences, and promotes equal opportunities.

We encourage all authors to followElsevier’s inclusive language guidelines to avoid the use of certain expressions or words that might be considered exclusionary of particular groups of people.


Download the inclusive language guidelines in PDF.


Authors must ensure that the submitted article is free of bias, stereotypes, slang, references to dominant culture, and cultural assumptions.

II. Editorial Policy

All ERUDITUS® journals abide by the Editorial Policy, which consists of Ethical, Technical, and Academic standards and includes post-publishing investigation to ensure their compliance with our established requirements and avoid publishing malpractices. Consequently, final acceptance of a submitted paper is based on obtaining the editorial approval in the three above-mentioned sectors.

A.   Our Principles:

1.     We respect the freedom of research.

There is no restriction on selected subjects, related political/religious issues, conclusions, etc., as long as they comply with ethical requirements and the results are objective, based on scholarly research.

2.     We advance Inclusive Policy.

At ERUDITUS, we do not show any preferences. We accept manuscripts from all countries and territories, and from any group or community, as long as they are in compliance with Academic, Ethical and Technical standards.

3.     We aim to facilitate scholarly research.

We seek to increase the share of high-quality open access research in English from developing and under-developed countries. For this purpose, we provide authors with affordable services.

4.     We are ready to help early career scholars.

We know how difficult it can be to publish that first article. At ERUDITUS®, we stand ready to assist new authors by mentoring them on how to prepare their research for publishing.

5.     We remove unnecessary limitations.

We do not have any restrictions on the length of a manuscript or its layout.




B.    Manuscript Examination:

All journals’ content is subject to peer-review, ethical, and technical investigations. The editorial team process all submitted manuscripts in accordance with the present Editorial Policy and, in the case of any concerns or allegations of misconducts, they refer to COPE guidelines. Editors, authors, and reviewers within ERUDITUS® are to be fully committed to good publication practices and accept the responsibility of fulfilling their duties in accordance with the ERUDITUS® Publication Ethics and Editorial Policy.

1.     Technical Review:


During the technical examination, the editorial team decides if a manuscript:

-       is within the Aims & Scope of the Journal;

-       meets author’s guidelines;

-       contains appropriate research;

-       is provided with data availability;

-       includes valid links and competent sources;

-       and is written in English meeting the required level.


2.     Ethical Review:


The ethical standards have been developed based on COPE Core Practices, and include, but are not limited to, plagiarism, authorship, citations, resources, declaration of interests, funding disclosure, and use of inclusive language.

2.1. Plagiarism

The originality of a submitted paper is subject to being checked by one or more professional softwares if necessary, and may include an additional manual check to avoid plagiarism or the republishing of work in another country or in a different language.

Plagiarism, in any form, is not tolerated.

2.2. Authorship

The contributions of authors and the authorship must correspond to the Authorship requirements. A submitted manuscript shall contain a statement of fulfilling the authorship criteria confirming that have not been omitted other authors, and taking responsibility for the integrity of those contributions. The editorial board may contact authors or, if necessary, their institutions or funders to avoid inappropriate authorship.

2.3. Citations & Resources

Use of inaccurate data, incompetent resources, inappropriate citation or an excess of self-citation is not acceptable.

Inappropriate citations and resources may serve as a cause for rejection.

2.4. Research Fraud

Any data manipulation, falsification, or invention is not tolerated.

2.5. Conflicts of Interest & Funding Disclosure

All issues regarding any existing or potential conflicts of interest will be checked and the editorial team do their best to not allow and conflicts of interest between authors, reviewers, staff, and editorial board.

2.6. Inclusive Language & Objectivity

To proceed further, a submitted article shall be free from bias, stereotypes, slang, references to dominant culture, and cultural assumptions, as well as the use of certain expressions or words that might be considered exclusionary of particular groups of people. 


3.     Academic Examination or Peer-Review Process:

All submitted papers are subject to a rigorous peer-review process by one or two reviewers that are experts in the area of a particular manuscript. The peer-review process is double-blind, which means that the identities of both the reviewer and author are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.

The final decision shall be made by a topic editor or by editorial board considering the overall quality of a paper and the issued reports of reviewers.  

The factors that are considered in a peer-review process include, but are not limited to, originality, relevance, soundness, significance, and accuracy.

The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, resubmission required, and rejection.

The corresponding author is obliged to participate in the peer-review process and provide the editorial team with required information. Ignoring the editorial queries or refusing to provide additional information will lead to rejection.

If authors are invited to revise or resubmit a manuscript, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.

Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.

The editorial board provides authors with the reason for rejection, whenever possible.


4.     Post-Publishing Investigation

Any allegations of publication misconduct after publishing will be investigated carefully. The editorial team may contact authors, their institutions, or funders, if necessary. If evidence of misconduct is found, the appropriate action will be taken to correct or retract the publication.

If authors discover any errors in the published research, they are obliged to inform the journal immediately and provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.


III.   Editors’ Obligations & Responsibilities


At EUDITUS, all editors have independence in their decisions regarding reviewed manuscripts and, subsequently, they have authorization to accept or reject papers. Meanwhile, they are committed to being objective and abiding by the Publication Ethics & Editorial Policy, along with COPE guidelines.

Editors are obliged:

  1. To treat manuscripts confidentially;

  2. To preserve the anonymity of reviewers and authors;

  3. To ensure that a paper meets all ethical requirements;

  4. To be objective in their judgments;

  5. To assign qualified and competent reviewers;

  6. Not to allow any conflicts of interest between authors, reviewers, staff, and editorial board;

  7. To accept papers for review only if they have sufficient expertise in that field;

  8. To act immediately if there is evidence or suspicion of misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and to make all reasonable attempts to obtain a resolution to the problem;

  9. To publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed;

  10. To make decisions only based on the paper's scientific contribution, originality, significance, clarity, accuracy, and ethics;

  11. To interact with authors and give advice, as well as to require details, explanation, and revision;

  12. Not to reject papers without proof of misconduct, nor for minor issues which could be fixed in a revision;

  13. To be responsible for the content and quality of the manuscripts, reviewed by them;

  14. To point out relevant published work which has not yet been cited;

  15. To respect defined deadlines.


IV.   Recommendation for Reviewers

There is no doubt that peer-review is the essential element in academic publications and that reviewers play a significant role in evaluating the quality of manuscripts. Details on how to submit review reports may be found in the Reviewers’ Guidelines.

Reviewers collaborating with ERUDITUS are to be fully committed to good publication practices, following these principles:

  1. To treat manuscripts confidentially;

  2. To accept or decline invitations quickly;

  3. To be objective in their judgments with no personal criticism of the author;

  4. To accept papers for review only if they have sufficient expertise in that field;

  5. Not to accept an invitation if they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other kinds of relationships;

  6. To review manuscripts in a timely manner and to request an extension, if necessary;

  7. To point out relevant published work which has not yet been cited;

  8. To respect defined deadlines;

  9. To evaluate manuscripts based on the paper's originality, significance, scientific contribution, clarity, accuracy, quality of presentation, English level and overall merit;

  10. To justify their decisions with sufficient arguments;

  11. To underline any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge;

  12. To inform if anyone else, such as a student, will participate in writing the review;

  13. To take the responsibility of other participants, and to ensure they abide by these principles.

bottom of page