Ethical Principles

Management Systems Evolution and Leadership Studies (MSELS) is committed to maintaining high standards of integrity, transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct throughout the scholarly publishing process. The journal considers publication ethics an essential part of academic quality and expects authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher to act responsibly at every stage of manuscript submission, evaluation, revision, acceptance, and publication.

The journal's ethical policies are guided by internationally recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing, including the general principles promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All allegations of research or publication misconduct are evaluated carefully, fairly, and confidentially. When a concern is raised, the journal seeks to establish the relevant facts before taking editorial action.

Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts submitted to MSELS represent original, accurate, and ethically conducted research. The manuscript should present the research methods, findings, interpretations, and limitations honestly and sufficiently clearly to permit appropriate scholarly evaluation.

Authors must not fabricate, falsify, manipulate, or deliberately misrepresent data, research procedures, findings, references, or other elements of a study. Selective reporting intended to create a misleading impression of the results is also inconsistent with the journal's ethical standards.

All sources used in a manuscript must be properly acknowledged. Ideas, arguments, words, data, figures, tables, and other materials originating from another source must be cited appropriately. Authors should distinguish clearly between their own contributions and material derived from previously published work.

Authors are also responsible for obtaining any required ethical approvals, permissions, informed consent, institutional authorization, or other documentation applicable to their research.

Originality, Plagiarism, and Text Recycling

Manuscripts submitted to the journal must constitute original scholarly work. Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable. This includes direct copying without appropriate attribution, inappropriate paraphrasing, presenting another person's ideas as one's own, and unauthorized reproduction of figures, tables, data, or other materials.

The journal uses iThenticate to assist in identifying textual similarities between submitted manuscripts and previously available material. Similarity reports are assessed by the editorial team rather than interpreted solely according to a numerical similarity percentage. Legitimate similarities, such as references, standard methodological terminology, or appropriately cited material, are distinguished from potentially unethical duplication.

Authors should also avoid excessive self-plagiarism or text recycling. Reuse of substantial portions of an author's previously published material without proper acknowledgment may constitute unethical publication practice. Where previously published material is legitimately reused, appropriate citation and transparency are required.

Duplicate and Simultaneous Submission

A manuscript submitted to MSELS must not simultaneously be under consideration by another journal. Authors should wait until the editorial process has formally concluded before submitting the same manuscript elsewhere.

Submitting substantially the same research to more than one journal at the same time is considered a serious breach of publication ethics because it unnecessarily consumes editorial and reviewer resources and may lead to duplicate publication.

Previously published articles should not be submitted as new manuscripts. When a submitted study significantly overlaps with another publication or manuscript by the authors, the relationship between the works must be disclosed clearly to the editorial office.

Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made a substantial intellectual contribution to the research and manuscript. All listed authors should have participated sufficiently in the work to accept responsibility for their contribution and should approve the final version submitted for publication.

Individuals who have made important contributions but do not satisfy the criteria for authorship may be acknowledged appropriately rather than listed as authors.

Gift authorship, in which an individual is listed despite having made no meaningful contribution, and ghost authorship, in which a substantial contributor is deliberately omitted, are unacceptable.

Authors are responsible for agreeing on the authorship list and author order before submission. Requests to add, remove, or rearrange authors after submission must be accompanied by an appropriate explanation and may require written agreement from all affected authors. Changes after acceptance are permitted only in exceptional and adequately justified circumstances.

Corresponding Author Responsibilities

The corresponding author serves as the principal point of communication between the journal and the author group. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors have approved the submitted manuscript, are aware of its submission, and agree with subsequent revisions and the final version.

The corresponding author should also ensure that information concerning funding, conflicts of interest, ethical approval, authorship, and related matters is reported accurately.

Data Accuracy and Research Integrity

Authors must report research findings accurately and should retain the underlying research materials or data for an appropriate period where applicable. Editors may request clarification or supporting information when serious questions concerning the reliability of reported results arise.

Fabrication of data, manipulation of results, inappropriate alteration of images, intentional omission of important findings, or any other practice designed to misrepresent the research record may result in rejection, withdrawal, correction, retraction, or further investigation.

Statistical analyses and research methods should be described transparently and should not be manipulated for the purpose of producing predetermined or misleading conclusions.

Ethical Approval and Research Involving Human Participants

Research involving human participants should comply with applicable ethical standards, laws, institutional requirements, and professional guidelines. Where institutional ethical review is required, authors should obtain approval from the appropriate ethics committee or institutional review board before conducting the research.

Relevant manuscripts should identify the approving institution or committee and, where appropriate, provide the approval or protocol number.

Research involving surveys, interviews, experiments, personal records, or identifiable information should respect participants' privacy, confidentiality, dignity, and autonomy. Informed consent should be obtained when required by the nature of the research and applicable ethical standards.

Identifying information should not be published unless its inclusion is academically necessary and the appropriate consent has been obtained.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose relationships or circumstances that could reasonably be perceived as affecting their objectivity.

Potential conflicts of interest may include financial relationships, employment, consultancy arrangements, professional competition, institutional relationships, close personal relationships, intellectual disagreements, or other interests directly connected with the submitted work.

The existence of a conflict of interest does not automatically prevent publication or participation in peer review. However, transparency is necessary so that the journal can determine whether appropriate measures are required.

Reviewers should decline invitations when a conflict prevents an impartial evaluation. Editors should similarly recuse themselves from decisions involving manuscripts for which they have a significant conflict.

Funding Disclosure

Authors should disclose significant sources of financial support for the research when applicable. Funding statements should identify the organization or institution that financially supported the work and should clarify the role of the funding source where that role could be relevant to the interpretation of the research.

Funding organizations must not be allowed to compromise the integrity of the research or the independence of the authors' conclusions.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Peer reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the scholarly quality and integrity of MSELS. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, evidence-based, constructive, and respectful evaluations.

Review reports should address the academic merits and limitations of the manuscript rather than the personal characteristics of its authors. Offensive, discriminatory, hostile, or personally directed comments are not acceptable.

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts within their areas of expertise. If a reviewer believes that they lack sufficient expertise to assess a manuscript appropriately, they should decline the review invitation or inform the editor.

Reviewers should also complete evaluations within the requested period whenever possible. If circumstances prevent timely completion, the editorial office should be notified.

Confidentiality of Peer Review

MSELS follows a double-blind anonymous peer-review process. Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not share manuscripts, discuss unpublished content with unauthorized individuals, distribute manuscript files, or use unpublished information obtained through peer review for their own research, professional, financial, or personal advantage.

Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors as part of the journal's standard double-blind review process. The journal likewise seeks to protect the confidentiality of authors during anonymous peer review.

Reviewer Misconduct

Reviewers must not intentionally delay the editorial process, appropriate ideas from unpublished manuscripts, provide deliberately misleading evaluations, or use peer review to disadvantage professional competitors.

If the journal becomes aware of evidence of reviewer misconduct, the matter may be investigated and appropriate action taken, including discontinuation of the reviewer's involvement with the journal.

Editorial Responsibilities and Independence

Editors are responsible for making publication decisions based on the scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance, clarity, and ethical integrity of manuscripts.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by an author's nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, personal relationships, political views, religious beliefs, or other characteristics unrelated to the academic quality of the submission.

Commercial considerations, including payment of an Article Processing Charge (APC), must not influence acceptance decisions. Payment is relevant only after the manuscript has successfully passed the journal's editorial and peer-review requirements.

Editors should protect the confidentiality of manuscripts, reviewers, and editorial correspondence and should avoid using unpublished information acquired through their editorial responsibilities for personal benefit.

Editorial Conflicts of Interest

Editors must not manage manuscripts where a relationship or competing interest creates a substantial risk of bias. Such manuscripts should be assigned to another qualified editor whenever appropriate.

Manuscripts submitted by editorial board members or individuals associated with the journal should be subjected to the same academic standards and independent peer-review requirements as other submissions. Editorial affiliation does not guarantee acceptance or preferential treatment.

Citation Ethics

References should be included because they are academically relevant to the manuscript. Authors should not manipulate citations for the purpose of artificially increasing citation counts for themselves, particular colleagues, journals, organizations, or institutions.

Editors and reviewers should not pressure authors to add unnecessary references merely to increase citations to their own publications or to the journal.

At the same time, reviewers may appropriately recommend relevant literature when important scholarship necessary for the accuracy or completeness of a manuscript has been omitted.

Image, Figure, and Data Manipulation

Figures, photographs, graphs, statistical results, and other research materials must accurately represent the underlying information.

Adjustments made for clarity should not alter, hide, introduce, or misrepresent important information. Selective manipulation intended to produce a misleading interpretation of the results constitutes research misconduct.

Authors are responsible for obtaining permission for copyrighted images, figures, instruments, or other third-party material where permission is legally required.

Artificial Intelligence and AI-Assisted Tools

Artificial intelligence and AI-assisted technologies should be used responsibly and transparently in scholarly work.

AI systems cannot be listed as authors because authorship requires accountability for the accuracy, integrity, originality, and ethical conduct of the work. Human authors remain fully responsible for all material submitted to the journal, including content created or modified with the assistance of AI tools.

Where generative AI or similar technologies have been used substantially in the preparation, analysis, or production of a manuscript, authors should disclose their use when relevant. AI-generated information should be checked carefully because such systems may produce inaccurate, incomplete, biased, or fabricated information and references.

Authors must also ensure that the use of AI tools does not compromise confidential research data, participant privacy, copyright, intellectual property, or other ethical obligations.

Errors Identified After Publication

Authors have a continuing responsibility for the integrity of their published work. If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy after publication, the author should notify the journal promptly and cooperate in determining the appropriate corrective action.

Minor errors that do not affect the scientific conclusions may be addressed through a correction. More serious problems may require an editorial notice, substantial correction, or retraction.

The objective of post-publication correction is to preserve the accuracy and reliability of the scholarly record rather than to punish honest mistakes.

Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

MSELS may issue corrections, retractions, or other editorial notices when necessary to maintain the integrity of the published record.

A correction may be issued when an otherwise reliable article contains an important error that requires formal clarification. Retraction may be considered when findings are found to be seriously unreliable because of misconduct or major error, when plagiarism or duplicate publication is established, when unethical research is identified, or when other circumstances substantially undermine the integrity of the publication.

When an investigation is incomplete but serious concerns exist regarding the reliability or integrity of an article, the journal may publish an appropriate notice or expression of concern until sufficient information becomes available.

Retractions and corrections should remain linked to the original article so that the publication history remains transparent.

Complaints and Allegations of Misconduct

The journal takes credible allegations of publication or research misconduct seriously. Concerns may relate to plagiarism, authorship disputes, data fabrication, unethical research, undisclosed conflicts of interest, reviewer misconduct, inappropriate citation practices, duplicate publication, or other violations of scholarly standards.

Complaints should provide sufficient information and, where possible, supporting evidence to allow the journal to evaluate the concern fairly.

The editorial team will seek to examine allegations objectively and confidentially. Authors or other individuals involved may be invited to provide explanations or documentation. The journal will avoid reaching conclusions before relevant evidence has been considered.

Where necessary, the journal may contact an author's institution, research organization, ethics committee, funding body, or another appropriate authority, particularly when the matter requires an investigation beyond the journal's capacity.

Sanctions for Serious Misconduct

Where serious misconduct is established, appropriate actions may include rejection of a submitted manuscript, withdrawal of a manuscript from consideration, publication of a correction or retraction, restrictions on future submissions, notification of relevant institutions, or other actions proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the misconduct.

Any action taken should be based on available evidence and should seek primarily to protect the integrity of scholarly communication and the published record.

Commitment to Ethical Publishing

Management Systems Evolution and Leadership Studies regards publication ethics as a shared responsibility among authors, reviewers, editors, the publisher, and the scholarly community. The journal is committed to fair peer review, editorial independence, transparent correction of the scholarly record, responsible research conduct, and respectful treatment of everyone involved in the publication process.

Through these principles, MSELS seeks to ensure that research published in the journal is trustworthy, ethically produced, appropriately reviewed, and capable of contributing responsibly to scholarship in management systems, organizational studies, and leadership research.