Publication ethics and malpractice statement
 
“Marketing and Management of Innovations” is committed to ensuring the highest ethical standards with the aim to maintain high quality of articles. Therefore, all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer have to conduct themselves in accordance with the standards of expected ethical behavior and have to follow their responsibilities. The following responsibilities outlined for editors, authors, and reviewers are based on the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors, authorized by COP (Committee on Publication Ethics).
 
1. Publication and authorship:
1.1. Articles have to be conforming according to requirements of the Journal “Marketing and Management of Innovations”; 
1.2. To be published in the journal applicants must submit the article, summary, author(s) details and scientific recommendation;
1.3. All articles are reviewed independently and in secret: reviewers receive encrypted articles; reviewers are anonymous for authors;
1.4. No plagiarism and no fraudulent data is allowed in articles;
1.5. Submitted articles shouldn’t be published or reviewed in other journals.
 
2. Author's responsibilities:
2.1. All authors must submit materials conforming requirements of the Journal “Marketing and Management of Innovations”;
2.2. All authors are responsible for the views, opinions, results and conclusions of the articles published in the journal;
2.3. All authors have responsibility for the accuracy of the information in the articles, accuracy of names and quotes;
2.3. All authors must not submit materials which contain offensive statements, national, religious, racial and other types of aggression or discrimination or can cause ethnic and racial enmity, violate international law and legislation;
2.4. Authors materials have to cover the original results of research in marketing of innovations and innovations in marketing, innovative management, innovative development, ecological marketing and management;
2.5. Authors are responsible for plagiarism detection of the materials; plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable;
2.6. Authors obliged to participate in double-blind peer review process;
2.7. Authors must not submit materials to more than one journal simultaneously. If some parts of material overlap with already published or submitted materials, authors have to acknowledge and cite those sources. Also authors must inform editors about self-plagiarism (any related articles published in other journals);
2.8. All authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of error(s) according to peer-review report; 
2.9. Authors must sign the agreement on the transfer of copyright after confirmation of acceptance of article publishing.
 
3. Responsibility for the reviewers:
3.1. All materials must be evaluated according to set criteria. All articles have to be reviewed in a period no more than 2 months. In other way reviewers should inform the editor if this is not possible; 
3.2. Reviewers should provide a constructive, comprehensive, evidenced, and appropriately substantial peer-review report without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s);
3.3. Reviewers must keep the peer-review process independently, objectively and in secret; the articles should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside of the peer-review process; personal criticism of the author(s) is unacceptable;
3.4. Reviewers must be qualified to review the assigned articles; 
3.5. Reviewers must immediately inform editor about articles containing plagiarized material or falsified data;
3.6. Reviewers should not use for own research any part of any data of reviewed and yet unpublished articles;
3.7. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest with the author(s) and/or editor(s).
 
4. Editorial board responsibilities: 
4.1. Editors have to send the results of reviewing, comments and recommendations to the author(s) via e-mail in a period no more than 2 months; documentation associated with reviewing process should be retained;
4.2. Editors mustn’t use any data or analysis presented in a submitted articles in own research;
4.3. Editors must ensure that submitted articles are processed in a confidential manner; editors should not disclose the names and other details of the authors and/or reviewers to a third party without their permission;
4.4. Editors should investigate all authors and/or reviewers complaints;
4.5. Editors may reject submitted articles if they consider the articles to be inappropriate for the journal and outside its sections;
4.6. Editors have the right to make the final decision on whether to accept or reject article depending on its originality, novelty, clarity and conformity to journal’s requirements;
4.7. Editors shouldn’t oblige the authors to cite editors’ materials or materials published in journal as a necessary condition of accepting their articles for publication.
 
5. Publishing ethics issues:
5.1. Editorial board’s work bases on publishing ethics which is targeted on fighting against conflicts of interest, plagiarism, unethical experimentation, falsification and fabrication of data; 
5.2. Editorial board is opened to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed; 
5.3. All articles are evaluated according to such criteria as originality, relevance, innovation, importance of results in the industry, theoretical basic and theoretical review of existing research and published materials, literacy, accuracy, significance, readability and language;
5.4. The possible decisions after reviewing process may include: publish as is; publish with minor modifications; sending to reviewing again (if it is required significant changes); refuse (if a major rewrite is required. Author should be encouraged to resubmit rewritten paper); refuse without resubmission (if materials have fundamental flaws, contain plagiarism or do not match the subject of the journal);
5.5. Editorial board is opened to take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented.