Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
The journal Finance, Markets and Valuation follows the recommendations and core practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
regarding ethical policies and dealing with misconduct. Misconduct includes falsifying data, plagiarizing
others' works, and breach of confidentiality. Each case will be considered by the publisher and Editors-in-Chief,
and in all cases the author (or reviewer) will be contacted directly. However, the publisher reserves the right to
speak directly to the author's or reviewer's institution or other appropriate organization if severe misconduct is suspected.
Note that if misconduct is suspected during the review process the manuscript will be held until any concerns have been
resolved. If misconduct is confirmed during the review process the manuscript will be immediately rejected. If misconduct
is proved after publication then the article will be retracted.
DUTIES OF EDITORS
Fair play and editorial independence
Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality,
study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender,
sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation.
Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the
journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the
timing of publication of that content.
Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the
corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Editors and Editorial Board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their
own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by
Editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage.
A Conflict of interest is defined as a situation where personal relationships (e.g. friend, colleague or family),
business relationships (e.g. working in a competing company), or financial influences (e.g. funding) will affect the
judgement of any person during the publication of the journal.
Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from
competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected
to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the Editorial Board to handle the manuscript.
The Editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two
reviewers who are expert in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts
submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers
and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright
infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other Editors or reviewers in making this decision.
DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists Editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist
authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies
at the heart of scientific endeavour.
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review
will be impossible should immediately notify the Editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers
can be contacted.
Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or
discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific
circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can
use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an
observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant
citation. A reviewer should also notify the Editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under
consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or
connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein
should immediately notify the Editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that
alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express
written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and
not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
DUTIES OF AUTHORS
Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an
objective discussion of the significance of the work. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to
permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive, while
editorial 'opinion' or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate
statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Data access and retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should
be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such
data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably via an institutional or
subject-based data repository or other data centre), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected
and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.
Originality and plagiarism
Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or
words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of
the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as
the author's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results
from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of sources
Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have
been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation,
correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the
source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing
manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work
involved in these services.
Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication
Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication.
Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal.
Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable.
The publication of some kinds of articles (such as translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable,
provided that certain conditions are met. The authors and Editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary
publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be
cited in the secondary publication.
Authorship of the manuscript
Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take
public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data
acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important
intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for
publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical
help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as
an author, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named as been
obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no
inappropriate coauthors are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final
version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Authors should at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and
including a statement in the manuscript) disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results
or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include
financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership,
employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing
arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or
beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should
be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).
Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to Editors’ requests.
In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically,
point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.
Fundamental errors in published works
When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly
notify the journal’s Editors or Publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or
to retract the paper. If the Editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant
error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the
journal Editors of the correctness of the paper
DUTIES OF THE PUBLISHER
Handling of unethical publishing behavior
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the Publisher, in close
collaboration with the Editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in
question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction
of the affected work. The Publisher, together with the Editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the
publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or
knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.
Access to journal content
The Publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility
by partnering with organizations and maintaining our own digital archive. For details on the archiving policy, visit the
section on Journal Long-term Archiving
This procedure applies to complaints of any stakeholders of the journal, to be it authors or readers. We believe that
complaints provide an opportunity for improvement.
If the journal receives a complaint, this complaint is investigated. The Editorial Board will make every endeavor to put
matters right as soon as possible in the most appropriate way, offering right of reply where necessary. As far as possible,
we will investigate complaints in a blame-free manner, looking to see how systems can be improved to prevent mistakes occurring.
E-mail for complaints: firstname.lastname@example.org