Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The Review of Socio-Economic Research and Development Studies (ReSERDS) is committed to meet and adhere the highest ethical standards in the conduct of research and publication process. ReSERDS follows the established guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in dealing with publication ethics. ReSERDS adheres to COPE to meet high ethical standards for all stakeholders involved in the publication process.

In addition, the ethics and malpractice statement of ReSERDS is guided by the policies on ethical publishing widely accepted by international editors (for example Elsevier’s Policies and Guidelines on Ethical Publishing). Authors may also refer to the Ethics Toolkit from Elsevier. It is essential to observe these ethical standards so that the manuscripts and actions taken can be considered ethically acceptable.

The Visayas Socio-Economic Research and Data Analytics Center (ViSERDAC) together with the Department of Economics, Visayas State University located in Leyte, Philippines is the publisher of the journal titled “Review of Socio-Economic Research and Development Studies (ReSERDS). The publisher is committed to oversee the different stages of the publication process and take serious consideration of its ethical roles and responsibilities. In this part, we laid down the minimum ethical standards to be followed by editors, authors, and reviewers. Authors interested to publish with ReSERDS must abide by these ethical standards.

For Editors

  1. The editor makes an initial assessment of the submitted paper if it fits to the aims and scope of the journal. If it falls within the coverage of the journal, the manuscript will be subjected to a plagiarism checker to ensure the originality of the submission.
  2. The editor has to evaluate the manuscript objectively, judging its scholarly merits and quality content without prejudice to the nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, or institutional affiliations of the authors.
  3. The editor should decline the task if there are potential conflict of interests and pass the task to another editor who can assess the paper objectively.
  4. After the manuscript passes the initial assessment, the Editor will send the manuscript for peer-review to two referees. 
  5. ReSERDS follows a double-blind peer-review process. The editor should ensure that the manuscript sent for review does not contain information about the authors. In the same manner, when communicating the comments and suggestions of the reviewers, the editor should ensure that there are no information included that can trace back to the reviewer.
  6. The editor takes the responsibility for making the final decision whether to accept or decline the paper for publication following the results of the peer-review process.
  7. To ensure objectivity in the decision, the editor’s decision should be accompanied by the reviewers’ comments, suggestions and observations about the submission.
  8. The editor should guarantee the confidentiality of the submitted manuscript. The names and email addresses entered in ReSERDS’s online submission will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.
  9. In case of misconduct, fraud, disputed authorship and other publication malice, the editor will take appropriate action guided by the standard set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

For Authors

We encouraged submissions of original articles or research briefs in the field of socio-economics and development studies.

  1. The Authors are required to check off their submission’s compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
  2. The Authors confirm that the submitted manuscript has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration
  3. The Authors confirm that the text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines.
  4. The  Authors confirm that submission file is in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, or RTF document file format. Where available, URLs for the references have been provided. The text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
  5. The Authors ensure the originality of the work and they have properly cited others’ work in accordance of the format of the references used by ReSERDS.
  6. The authors take responsibility in securing permissions for the use of copyrighted materials including images, texts, tables, and other copyrighted works. 
  7. The authors adhere to the ethical standard in research and publication. Proper consent has been secured in collecting information from the respondents. The authors commit to adhere to the provisions outlined in the Data Privacy Act of 2012. The authors commit to protect and secure personal information obtained in the research and publication process.
  8. When using photographs and any personal information are necessary to dispense scientific information, it is the responsibility of the Authors to secure prior written consent to use such information.
  9. When needed the authors should provide access to the research data if there are questions or suspicions about the integrity of research results.
  10. The authors shall disclose any potential conflict of interest either financial or personal relationships that could potentially affect research outputs. If authors declare no conflict of interest, please indicate the following statement: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

For Reviewers

ReSERDS trust the expertise of our reviewers in assessing the scholarly merit of the submitted manuscripts.

  1. The Reviewers are selected by the editors from the pool of experts. The Reviewers’ expertise will be matched with the issue or topics covered in the submission.
  2. The Reviewers are invited to assess the scholarly merit of the paper and provide recommendations on whether to accept, revise or turn the paper for publications.
  3. The Reviewers need to comment on the scholarly merits of the paper, academic rigors in the analysis including ethical consideration and possible research and publication misconduct.
  4. When writing the review report, the Reviewers should ensure that the review report is focused on the content of the paper. The reviewers may put their place of the authors and evaluate the following guide questions: (a) If you receive this review report, will you find it helpful and constructive? (b) Will you find the tone of the review report professional and courteous? 
  5. The Reviewers are expected to provide their assessment in a timely manner. Should the reviewers need more time, they can notify the editors.
  6. The Reviewers should guarantee the confidentiality of the submitted manuscript.
  7. In case of potential conflict of interests, the reviewers should decline the review process.
  8. Reviewers can get recognition in Publons for agreeing to evaluate the scientific merit of the submitted paper.

The Editorial team of ReSERDS has the right to take actions if publication misconduct is detected throughout the publication process.

Authorship and contributor roles

ReSERDS follows the ICMJE authorship criteria to ensure transparency and accountability:

  1. All authors must have made substantial contributions to the conception/design, data acquisition/analysis, drafting/revision, and final approval of the manuscript.
  2. Authors must specify individual roles (e.g., conceptualization, data curation, writing – original draft).
  3. Requests for addition, removal, or reordering of authors must be signed by all authors and approved by the Editor-in-Chief. Changes post-publication will be documented via a formal correction.
  4. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all contributors are properly listed, that all authors approve the final manuscript, and for maintaining communication with the journal.

Post-publication corrections

When issues arise after publication, the journal will issue formal updates in accordance with international standards, including the COPE Guidelines on Retractions, Corrections, and Expressions of Concern. Corrections may address factual inaccuracies, typographical errors, metadata issues, or authorship changes.

  1. A Correction (errata) notice will be published as a separate, citable item and linked to the original article. The notice will clearly describe the nature of the error and the modifications made. Authorship changes (addition, removal, or reordering) will be handled through a correction, subject to editorial approval and author consent.
  2. An Expression of Concern may be published when there is credible doubt about the integrity of an article, but insufficient evidence to warrant a correction or retraction. This notice will remain linked to the article while investigations are ongoing. Depending on the outcome, it may be replaced with a correction, retraction, or withdrawn if no issues are confirmed.
  3. Addenda are published when authors or editors wish to provide supplementary information that enhances the original article but does not alter its conclusions. Addenda are peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editor. They are published as separate, citable items and linked to the original article.

Retraction Policy

Retractions are issued following the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The decision to retract a paper is made by the editorial board in consultation with relevant stakeholders. A retraction notice will be published in the journal, clearly stating the reason for retraction and linking to the original article, which will be marked as retracted but remain accessible for transparency. Retraction of published articles may occur when:

  1. Proven cases of research misconduct arise (e.g., data fabrication, plagiarism, unethical research practices)
  2. Significant errors are discovered that invalidate the findings or conclusions
  3. Duplicate publication is identified
  4. Authorship disputes or legal concerns are confirmed

Authors may also request voluntary retraction by submitting a formal explanation to the editorial office. All retraction requests are subject to editorial review and must be supported by valid justification.

Ethics clearance

Authors must secure ethics approval and comply with relevant standards. Studies involving human participants must include IRB or ethics committee approval and informed consent, especially for minors or identifiable data.

Authors who utilize generative AI or other artificial intelligence tools in the research or writing process must disclose such use in the manuscript. ReSERDS permits AI use for language enhancement and technical support only, and AI tools cannot be listed as authors. Full guidelines on responsible AI use are available on the ReSERDS AI Use Policy page.

Publication malpractice

ReSERDS takes a firm stance against all forms of publication malpractice. The journal upholds ethical publishing standards and expects authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers to act with integrity and transparency throughout the publication process.

The following practices are considered forms of malpractice and may lead to rejection, retraction, or other editorial action:

  1. Plagiarism and redundant publication. Plagiarism and redundant publication, such as submitting work that copies or closely paraphrases existing publications without proper citation, or republishing the same content in multiple journals without disclosure or justification. Self-plagiarism that misleads readers about the novelty of the work is also considered unethical.
  2. Data fabrication and falsification. This includes manipulating research data, images, or results to misrepresent findings or omitting critical data that contradicts the conclusions. Data fabrication and falsification are serious violations.
  3. Authorship misconduct. Authorship misconduct involves listing individuals as authors who did not contribute meaningfully to the work, excluding contributors who meet authorship criteria, or failing to disclose changes in authorship during the review or publication process.
  4. Undisclosed conflicts of interest. Undisclosed conflicts of interest, whether financial, institutional, or personal, must be avoided, as they can influence the research or its interpretation.
  5. Ethical violations in research. Ethical violations in research include conducting studies without proper ethics approval or informed consent, and violating the privacy, confidentiality, or rights of research participants.
  6. Misuse of AI tools. This includes using generative AI to fabricate data, simulate peer review, or produce deceptive content. Authors must disclose any AI-assisted writing or analysis, as outlined in the ReSERDS AI Use Policy.

<