Publication Ethics

Journal of Competitiveness Studies (ISSN 2330-4103) and  Competition Forum (ISSN 1545-2581) and their publisher, the American Society for Competitiveness, are dedicated to upholding the best practices when considering ethical matters. The prevention of malpractice is our editorial board’s responsibility, and, as such, unethical behavior is not tolerated. The Society subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). As a community of knowledge, the Society supports the development and application of ethical standards for all its publications.

Duties of Editor/Copy Editor

Publication Decisions: 

Based on the review report of the Editorial Review Board, the editor-in-chief has complete responsibility and authority to accept, reject or request modifications to the manuscript.

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. 

Review of Manuscripts: 

Reviewers must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor-in-chief for originality. Following desk review, an anonymized manuscript is sent to members of the editorial review board who will make a recommendation to accept, reject, or modify the manuscript.


The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential, only to be made available when necessary. 

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 

The editor of this journal shall not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research without the written consent of the author.

Errors in Information: 

The editor, when discovering or being notified of errors, will make the necessary changes to uphold our ethical responsibilities. 

Duties of Authors

Publication guidelines: 

Authors are required to follow the submission guidelines as they are listed on the website.

Original Work: 

Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. In submitting work, authors certify that their manuscript has not been previously published nor is it being considered for publication elsewhere. 

Authorship of the Paper: 

Each author of the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.

Data Access and Retention: 

Authors should provide raw data related to their manuscript for editorial review and must retain such data. Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.

Conflict of Interest and/or Disclosure

Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest, such as financial connections, professional/personal affiliations or beliefs that impact the work. 

Fundamental Errors: 

Authors are responsible and obligated to report and correct errors in the paper or fully retract one’s article.

Duties of Reviewers


Reviewers should keep information from the manuscript confidential. 

Strong Review of Works: 

Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research; they should provide the author with relevant work not cited in the manuscript if need be. Reviewers must ensure that all sources of data have been acknowledged by the author. In addition, reviewers should offer clear and supported critiques of each article, avoiding personal criticism. 

Plagiarism, Fraud and Other Ethical Concerns: 

Reviewers should let the editor know if they suspect/find that a manuscript is a substantial copy of another work, providing the other work as evidence.

Conflicts of Interest: 

Reviewers are not asked to review manuscripts in which we believe there is a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions. If a reviewer were to identify them, it is their responsibility to decline review. 

Prompt Review:

If a reviewer is unable to complete a review within the projected timeline, we ask that they decline review as soon as possible.