Advanced Research in Economics and Business Strategy Journal adheres to the highest ethical standards in scholarly publishing. The journal follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, and ensures clear accountability for authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher.

This statement sets out the journal’s policies on authorship, conflicts of interest, data integrity, peer review, ethical oversight, handling of misconduct, corrections and retractions, and appeals and complaints.

1. Authorship and Contribution Integrity

Authorship criteria

• All listed authors must have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, analysis, or interpretation of the research.

• All authors must approve the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

• Any change in authorship (addition, removal, or re‑ordering of authors) after submission requires written consent from all listed and proposed authors and must be approved by the Editor‑in‑Chief.

Authorship statement

• A signed Authorship Statement must be submitted in PDF or image format (JPG/PNG) to the following email address: journal.arebus@univ-oran2.dz.

• The statement must specify each author’s contribution and confirm that all authors meet the journal’s authorship criteria.

Originality and plagiarism

• Submissions must be original, unpublished work and must not be under review in any other journal or publication outlet.

• Proper and complete attribution to prior work is mandatory; all sources must be cited appropriately.

• The journal uses plagiarism detection tools to screen all submissions. Manuscripts containing plagiarism or excessive self‑plagiarism may be rejected, returned for revision, or, if already published, retracted.

Redundant and duplicate publication

• Multiple, duplicate, or redundant publication of the same or substantially similar work in more than one journal without full disclosure and permission is considered unethical and is not allowed.

2. Conflicts of Interest

Disclosure

• Authors, reviewers, and editors must declare any financial, personal, or professional relationships that could reasonably be perceived to influence the submitted work or its evaluation (e.g., funding, consultancies, stock ownership, employment, personal relationships, or academic competition).

• All sources of financial support for the research should be disclosed in the manuscript.

Editorial recusal

• Editors and editorial board members who have a conflict of interest with respect to a manuscript (e.g., co‑authorship, institutional affiliation, personal relationship) will recuse themselves from the editorial process for that manuscript. Another editor will be assigned to handle the submission.

3. Data Integrity, Transparency and Reproducibility

Data accuracy and integrity

• Authors are responsible for ensuring that the data presented in their manuscripts are accurate, authentic, and honestly reported.

• Fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation of data, images, or results constitutes scientific misconduct and will lead to rejection of the manuscript or retraction of the published article.

Data availability

• Authors should retain the original data underlying their research for a reasonable period after publication and must be prepared to provide access to such data upon reasonable request, subject to legal and ethical constraints.

• Where appropriate, authors are encouraged to include a data availability statement in their manuscript.

Methodological transparency

• Authors must provide sufficient methodological details and references to allow other researchers to replicate or build upon the study.

4. Ethical Oversight

• Research involving human participants must comply with recognized ethical standards and must have received approval from a relevant ethics committee or institutional review board.

• Manuscripts must clearly state that ethics committee approval was obtained, including the name of the committee and approval reference number, and confirm that informed consent was obtained from participants where applicable.

• Authors must protect the privacy and confidentiality of research participants. Identifying information must not be published unless it is essential for scientific purposes and written informed consent for publication has been obtained.

5. Peer Review Integrity

Double‑blind peer review

• The journal operates a double‑blind peer review process: the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.

• Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and are expected to provide fair, objective, and timely evaluations.

Responsibilities of reviewers

Reviewers must:

• Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents and not share them with others without editorial permission.

• Avoid using any information obtained during the peer review process for personal advantage or for the advantage/disadvantage of any other person or organization.

• Provide objective, evidence‑based, and constructive feedback to help authors improve the quality of their work. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.

• Identify relevant published work that has not been cited, and alert editors to any substantial similarity between the manuscript and other published or submitted work.

• Decline review invitations where there is any conflict of interest (e.g., recent collaboration with the authors, institutional affiliation, personal relationship, or direct competition) or when they feel unqualified or unable to review the manuscript on time.

6. Editorial Responsibilities

Fair and unbiased evaluation

• Editors evaluate manuscripts solely on their intellectual and scholarly merit, relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, originality, clarity, and methodological rigor, regardless of the authors’ nationality, ethnicity, gender, institutional affiliation, or political or religious beliefs.

Confidentiality

• Editors and editorial staff must not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Conflicts of interest

• Editors must declare any conflicts of interest and must not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict. Such manuscripts will be handled by another editor.

Editorial transparency

• The journal provides clear, publicly accessible information on its editorial policies, peer review process, publication ethics, and contact details on its website.

7. Handling of Misconduct, Corrections and Retractions

Reporting concerns

• Suspected ethical violations (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, authorship disputes, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unethical research) should be reported to the editorial office at journal.arebus@univ-oran2.dz.

• Concerns may be raised by authors, reviewers, readers, or institutions.

Investigation process

Allegations of misconduct are handled in line with COPE guidelines and may involve the following steps:

1. Preliminary assessment by the Editor‑in‑Chief to determine whether the allegation has merit.

2. Contacting the corresponding author (and, where necessary, co‑authors or reviewers) for an explanation.

3. Gathering and evaluating relevant evidence, including similarity reports, raw data, or institutional information.

4. Where necessary, consultation with an independent ethics committee or the authors’ institutions.

Possible outcomes

Depending on the findings, actions may include:

• Rejection of the manuscript or withdrawal from peer review.

• Publication of a correction (erratum or corrigendum) for minor issues that do not invalidate the findings.

• Publication of an Expression of Concern while investigations are ongoing.

• Retraction of the article in cases of serious misconduct or errors that invalidate the work.

• Notification of the authors’ institutions or funding bodies.

Corrections and errata

• Honest errors discovered after publication that do not compromise the validity of the research will be corrected promptly through a clearly labeled correction (erratum or corrigendum) that is linked to the original article.

Retractions

• Articles may be retracted for reasons including plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, unethical research, duplicate publication, or major errors.

• Retracted articles remain accessible but are clearly marked as RETRACTED, and a retraction notice explaining the reasons is published and linked to the original article.

8. Post‑Publication Discussion, Appeals and Complaints

Post‑publication discussion

• Readers and researchers are encouraged to submit comments, critiques, or letters to the editor regarding published articles. Substantial, evidence‑based comments will be reviewed by the editorial team and, where appropriate, shared with the authors for response.

• Post‑publication discussions may lead to further editorial actions (e.g., corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions).

Appeals

• Authors may appeal editorial decisions by sending a formal, reasoned letter to the Editor‑in‑Chief at journal.arebus@univ-oran2.dz within 30 days of receiving the decision.

• Appeals must clearly explain why the decision is believed to be incorrect or unfair and may include a detailed response to reviewers’ comments.

• Appeals are reviewed by the Editor‑in‑Chief and/or an independent editor, and a final decision is communicated to the authors as promptly as possible.

Complaints

• Complaints concerning the editorial process, peer review, publication ethics, or other aspects of the journal’s operation should be sent to journal.arebus@univ-oran2.dz.

• All complaints are handled confidentially and fairly. An acknowledgment is sent within a reasonable time, and the journal aims to provide a substantive response within 14 days wherever possible.