PIEB publication ethics

General standards of PRADEC Publishing

The Perspectives of Innovations, Economics and Business (PIEB) is established by Prague Development Center (publisher) as academic communication platform founded on important ethical standards in science publishing. Publisher and editorial board follow principles to avoid bad practices related to ghostwriting, plagiarism, and predatory publishing practices. The publisher and editors commit to practices which create and support the trust on every  phase of editorial and communication process embracing authors, editors and peer-reviewers.
To increase transparency we call authors to write correct affiliations and addresses and show the source of funding of their research when it is required by funding institutions. To agree the authorship and avoid the conflicts we ask for declaration of contribution from the corresponding author. To avoid extensive self-citation practice we ask authors to use correct and relevant referencing to own research works published earlier.
Ethical conduct in both writing and editing is necessary in order to provide the readers with accurate, useful and reliable scientific material, as well as to appropriately honor the credits of particular researchers and authors. Therefore, compliance with the following standards of publication ethics is required of all contributors of the PIEB, including authors, reviewers and editors. Violation of any of these standards by an author is a basis for rejection of his or her paper submitted for publication.

Plagiarism

In publishing only original research, the editors are committed to deterring plagiarism, including self-plagiarism. Editors can use special software to screen submitted manuscripts for similarity to published material. Note that your manuscript may be screened during the whole editorial cycle, including submission process and until the final publication in online or print form. Authors should not engage in plagiarism - verbatim or near-verbatim copying, or very close paraphrasing, of text or results from another’s work. Authors should not engage in self-plagiarism (also known as duplicate publication) - unacceptably close replication of the author’s own previously published text or results without acknowledgement of the source.

Conflict of interests disclosure

Conflict of interest concerning a particular manuscript exists when one of the participants of reviewing or publication process - an author, reviewer, or editor - has obligations that can influence his or her action. Conflicts can occur for financial (e.g., employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, etc.) or other reasons (e.g., personal relationship, academic competition, and intellectual passion). All participants in the peer-review and publication process must disclose all conflicts of interests. Editorial staff may use information disclosed in conflict-of-interest and financial-interest statements as a basis for editorial decisions. The corresponding author must advise the editor at the time of submission either that there is no conflict of interest to declare, or should disclose potential conflicts of interest that will be acknowledged in the published article.
It is improper for an author to submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research to more than one journal of primary publication, unless it is a resubmission of a manuscript rejected for or withdrawn from publication.

Authorship

All persons designed as “authors” should meet the criteria of the concept. The corresponding author must fill in and sign the PIEB_declaration_of_contribution-author (in case there are two authors or more), which should be submitted together with the manuscript. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take responsibility for its content. The group of authors/contributors should jointly make the decision about the order in which their names are given. Authorship credit should be based on the following principles as: 1) substantial contribution to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or reviewing and introducing fundamental changes in it; 3) final approval of the version to be published. Editors of the journal have the right to request information about the contributions of each person in writing the article.
An author should cite those publications that have been important in the development of the submitted study and that will guide the reader to the earlier researchers that are essential for understanding the present analysis.
An author is obligated to perform a literature search to find, and then cite, the original publications that describe closely related work. An author should provide the accurate citation the verified sources of scientific data and literature.

Coauthor notification

During manuscript submission, the submitting author must provide contact information (full name, email address, institutional affiliation and mailing address) for all of the coauthors. The author who submits the manuscript for publication accepts the responsibility of notifying all coauthors that the manuscript is being submitted. Corresponding author must fill in and sign the declaration of contribution (in case there are two authors or more) which should be submitted together with manuscript. The co-authors of a paper should be all those persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the work reported and who share responsibility and accountability for the results. Authors should appropriately recognize the contributions of technical staff and data professionals.

Acknowledgments and funding

All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the section “Acknowledgements”. If the original research study reported in the manuscript or the preparation of the manuscript was supported by one or more grants, the title and number of the grant(s) and the name of the institution(s) that provided the grants or financial support to conduct, analyze or write-up the study should be specified in the manuscript.

Coherence of study

Fragmentation of research reports should be avoided. A scientist should organize publication so that it provides a well-rounded description of an examined issue. Fragmentation consumes journal space excessively and unduly complicates literature searches.

Reviewing

The journal is peer-reviewed publication. Submitted papers and short communications are evaluated by editorial board members or specialized in the article field referees. Article review covers submitted material currency, scientific novelty degree, define it’s accordance to general journal profile, fixes facts of plagiarism. After the refereeing process is complete, the paper may be rejected, or returned to the authors for revisions, or accepted for publication.

Editing

The authors are responsible for the contents of their paper or short communication and it’s publication fact. The editorial staff reserves the right to shorten, and review the articles submitted. Editors may request an author, when it is necessary, to develop content or technical details of articles. Scientific editing might change format and correct the writing to make it conventional with editorial policy of the journal.  Pictures and graphs are special subject to editorial consideration. We seek to keep their quantity optimal and only necessary in content. Images should be free from misleading manipulation. When images are included in an account of research performed or in the data collection as part of the research, an accurate description of how the images were generated and produced should be provided.

The effect of internal control on asset misappropriation: The case of Vietnam

This article [written by Manh Dung Tran, Thi Thu Ha Le] – published in Business and Economic Horizons, Volume 14(4), 2018.

Title: The effect of internal control on asset misappropriation: The case of Vietnam

Abstract: Asset misappropriation is a kind of fraud that may cause severe damages to the businesses. The internal control system is expected to provide a reasonable assurance for the management of the businesses in preventing and detecting frauds, including asset misappropriation. The study is conducted to examine the effect of internal control system on asset misappropriation in Vietnamese firms. Based on questionnaires collected from internal auditors, accountants and department managers in Vietnamese firms, the study assess the impact of COSO five internal control components on the popularity of asset misappropriation in the firms. The results show that of the five components, control environment presents the strongest impact, followed by control activities, information and communication in respective order. Determinants with the mildest impact are risk assessment and monitoring of control. Based on the findings, it is important that the management of the firms improve the internal controls to effectively reduce the chance of fraud in their firms.

Keywords: Asset misappropriation, fraud control, internal control, Vietnam

Citation: Tran, Manh Dung; Le, Thi Thu Ha (2018). “The effect of internal control on asset misappropriation: The case of Vietnam”, Business and Economic Horizons, Vol.14, Issue4, pp.941-953. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15208/beh.2018.64

 

Assessing the financial security of the engineering enterprises as preconditions of application of anti-crisis management: practical aspect

This article [written by Oleksandr Sylkin, Andriy Shtangret, Olha Ogirko, Alexander Melnikov] – published in Business and Economic Horizons, Volume 14(4), 2018.

Title: Assessing the financial security of the engineering enterprises as preconditions of application of anti-crisis management: practical aspect

Abstract: Today, engineering enterprises in Ukraine are experiencing poor development. The crisis development of many domestic engineering enterprises is reinforced by both internal and external factors, so it is critical to develop new methodologies to comprehensively estimate their level of financial security, thus serving as the information basis for the application of anti-crisis management. The objective of the study is to develop a model to assess the financial security of engineering enterprises. The subjects of the study are the activities of the top ten engineering enterprises in Ukraine for the period 2013-2017. The purpose of our research is to form a methodical approach to assess the financial security of engineering enterprises, which would become the basis for applying a certain type of anti-crisis management and encouragement in domestic engineering enterprises. The results of the study made it possible to form and implement a model to assess financial security, which will help to establish the need to apply anti-crisis management in an enterprise.

Keywords: Financial security; engineering enterprises; anti-crisis management; assessing the financial security of the enterprise

Citation: Sylkin, Oleksandr; Shtangret, Andriy; Ogirko, Olha; Melnikov, Alexander (2018). “Assessing the financial security of the engineering enterprises as preconditions of application of anti-crisis management: practical aspect”, Business and Economic Horizons, Vol.14, Issue4, pp.926-940. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15208/beh.2018.63

 

Efficiency as a new ideology of trust-building corporate governance

This article [written by Maryna Brychko, Andrii Semenog] – published in Business and Economic Horizons, Volume 14(4), 2018.

Title: Efficiency as a new ideology of trust-building corporate governance

Abstract: This paper seeks to examine the mainstream theories of corporate governance in an attempt to suggest that efficient corporate governance has no logical claim to “objectivity” and not always contribute to trust-building. Therefore, efficiency as the corporate governance goal is political and ideological plan of actions based on a set of controversial conceptual and empirical assumptions, which constitute norms and prescriptions. In addition, mechanisms of how these ideologies are supported and reproduced are shown. The paper provides the basis and seeks to persuade policymakers and commentators for new interdisciplinary research into the behavioral and political economy of corporate governance.

Keywords: Corporate governance, good corporate governance, trust-building strategy, efficiency, shareholder value, ideology, objective truth rule

Citation: Brychko, Maryna; Semenog, Andrii (2018).”Efficiency as a new ideology of trust-building corporate governance”, Business and Economic Horizons, Vol.14, Issue4, pp.913-925.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15208/beh.2018.62

 

Is there any causality between Islamic banks’ return on depositors and conventional banks’ deposit interest: Evidence of causality from Bahrain’s financial market

This article [written by Abdus Samad] – published in Business and Economic Horizons, Volume 14(4), 2018.

Title: Is there any causality between Islamic banks’ return on depositors and conventional banks’ deposit interest: Evidence of causality from Bahrain’s financial market

Abstract: Unlike conventional banks’ interest payment on deposits, Islamic banks do not pay interest to depositors. What they pay to depositors is called the rate of return to depositors. Does the rate of return of Islamic banks on deposits follow conventional banks’ interest rates? This paper empirically investigates the relationship of causality and the causal direction between conventional banks’ interest rate and Islamic banks’ return applying VEC model. The results of the VAR Granger Causality/Block Exogeneity Wald Tests fail to reject the null hypothesis of bidirectional causality between Islamic banks’ rate of return and conventional banks’ interest. The pairwise Granger causality also confirms the same results. This suggests that Islamic banks’ rate of return and the conventional banks’ interest rate are not independent of each other rather they follow each other in the Bahrain financial market.

Keywords: Bahrain, conventional bank, interest rate, Islamic bank, rate of return, Granger causality

Citation: Samad, Abdus (2018). “Is there any causality between Islamic banks’ return on depositors and conventional banks’ deposit interest: Evidence of causality from Bahrain’s financial market”, Business and Economic Horizons, Vol.14, Issue4, pp.894-912. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15208/beh.2018.61

 

Can disclosure practices and stakeholder management influence zakat payers’ trust? A Malaysian evidence

This article [written by Nahla Samargandi, Sakinah Mohamed Tajularifin, Erlane K. Ghani, Asmah Abdul Aziz, Ardi Gunardi] – published in Business and Economic Horizons, Volume 14(4), 2018.

Title: Can disclosure practices and stakeholder management influence zakat payers’ trust? A Malaysian evidence

Abstract: This study examines whether disclosure practices and stakeholder management play an important role in influencing the zakat payers’ trust in the zakat institutions in Malaysia. A regression analysis was performed to examine the relationship between disclosure practices and stakeholder management of the zakat institutions on zakat payers’ trust. Using questionnaire survey on 184 zakat payers, this study shows that the disclosure practices do influence the zakat payers’ trust in the zakat institutions. However, it is revealed that stakeholder management does not influence the zakat payers’ trust in zakat institutions. The findings in this study imply that the zakat institutions should focus on the transparency of disclosure practices. The findings in this research could assist the zakat institutions to increase the trust level of the zakat taxpayers towards them and assist the policy makers in establishing zakat institutions which would be perceived by the public as legitimate.

Keywords: Zakat payers’ trust level, disclosure practices, stakeholder management, zakat institutions

Citation: Samargandi, Nahla; Tajularifin, Sakinah Mohamed; Ghani, Erlane K; Aziz, Asmah Abdul; Gunardi, Ardi, 2018. “Can disclosure practices and stakeholder management influence zakat payers’ trust? A Malaysian evidence”, Business and Economic Horizons, Vol.14, Issue4, pp.882-893. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15208/beh.2018.60

 

Long-term memory in Euronext stock indexes returns: an econophysics approach

This article [written by Luis M. P. Gomes, Vasco J. S. Soares, Silvio M. A. Gama, Jose A. O. Matos] – published in Business and Economic Horizons, Volume 14(4), 2018.

Title: Long-term memory in Euronext stock indexes returns: an econophysics approach

Abstract: The purpose of paper is to assess the long-term memory of stock index returns in the pan-European platform Euronext (CAC-40, AEX, BEL-20 and PSI-20). We find evidence of time dependency in much of the data, suggesting that the series may best be described as fractional Brownian motion. Modified Rescaled-Range Analysis and Detrended Fluctuation Analysis were used to measure the degree of long memory. The global Hurst exponents evidence persistent long memory in the Dutch, Belgian and Portuguese markets. In the French market, evidence of long memory is inconsistent and weak. Fractal structure suggests non-conformity with the Efficient Market Hypothesis, and may compromise the reliability of asset pricing models. Furthermore, time-dependent Hurst exponents show evidence of weakening persistence in these markets, particularly after the international crises of 2000, 2002 and 2010. A possible explanation for those changes is that the markets may have matured over time, becoming more efficient after these severe events.

Keywords: Long-term memory, rescaled-range analysis, detrended fluctuation analysis, Hurst exponent, Euronext, efficient market hypothesis

Citation: M. P. Gomes, Luis; J. S. Soares, Vasco; M. A. Gama, Silvio; A. O. Matos, Jose, 2018.  “Long-term memory in Euronext stock indexes returns: an econophysics approach”,
Business and Economic Horizons, Vol.14, Issue4, pp.862-881. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15208/beh.2018.59

 

The analysis of capital structure for property-liability insurers: a quantile regression approach

This article [written by Jessica Hung, Vincent Y. L. Chang] – published in Business and Economic Horizons, Volume 14(4), 2018.

Title: The analysis of capital structure for property-liability insurers: a quantile regression approach

Abstract: By using a two-stage quantile regression approach (2SQR), this study demonstrates how the insurer’s leverage is determined across various quantiles. The evidence shows that the influence of the business concentration and marketing channel at the lower leverage quantiles is opposite to that at the higher leverage quantiles, which proposes that the mean effects of the two-stage ordinary least squares method are insufficient to capture the effects of business strategies on the insurer’s capital structure determination. Moreover, the 2SQR evidence also shows that the magnitude of the impacts for some determinations varies among the different leverage quantiles. In sum, the evidence suggests that these two competing approaches should be viewed as complementary functions when discussing the insurer’s capital structure.

Keywords: Capital structure, leverage, two-stage quantile regression, two-stage least squares regression

Citation: Hung, Jessica; Chang, Vincent Y. L., 2018. “The analysis of capital structure for property-liability insurers: a quantile regression approach”, Business and Economic Horizons, Vol.14, Issue4, pp.829-850. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15208/beh.2018.57

 

The influence of “offer for sale” by existing shareholders on investors’ reaction in the IPO immediate aftermarket

This article [written by Norliza Che-Yahya, Ruzita Abdul-Rahim, Rasidah Mohd Rashid] – published in Business and Economic Horizons, Volume 14(4), 2018.

Title: The influence of “offer for sale” by existing shareholders on investors’ reaction in the IPO immediate aftermarket

Abstract: This study investigates the influence of “offer for sale” by existing shareholders on investors’ reaction in the IPO immediate aftermarket. The “offer for sale” is measured by the proportion of shares offered to public from the sale of the existing shareholdings prior to IPO against the total number of shares offered during IPO. The “offer for sale” activity suggests that proceed from the shares sold at an IPO would go into the pocket of the existing shareholders. That is, the proceed does not actually meet the primary goals of the IPO to raise funds for business expansion. IPO firms that go public mainly through “offer for sale” activity are expected to receive less demand during IPO from potential investors as the investors are less optimistic in firms which their shares are offered mostly through “offer for sale” activity relative to firms which their shares are newly issued. Thus, firms which their shares are offered through “offer for sale” activity are predicted to produce poor initial aftermarket return and trading. Using a final sample of 419 Malaysian IPOs issued from January 2000 to December 2015, regression results of this study reveal that firms which their shares are offered highly through “offer for sale” report poor and lower initial aftermarket return and trading volume. The results support the proposition of this study that investors are less optimistic in firms which their shares are offered mostly through “offer for sale” activity.

Keywords: Offer for sale, investors’ reaction, IPO immediate aftermarket, Malaysia

Citation: Che-Yahya, Norliza; Abdul-Rahim, Ruzita; Mohd Rashid, Rasidah, 2018. “The influence of “offer for sale” by existing shareholders on investors’ reaction in the IPO immediate aftermarket”, Business and Economic Horizons, Vol.14, Issue4, pp.818-828. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15208/beh.2018.56

 

BEH publication ethics

Publication ethics

 Editors of Business and Economic Horizons (BEH) are committed to the highest standards of ethics in academic research and publishing. Ethical conduct in both writing and editing is necessary in order to provide the readers with accurate, useful and reliable scientific material, as well as to appropriately honor the credits of particular researchers and authors. Therefore, compliance with the following standards of publication ethics is required of all contributors of BEH, including authors, reviewers and editors. Violation of any of these standards by an author is a basis for rejection of his or her paper submitted for publication.

I.  Authorship and Co-authorship

1. Authorship
Authorship credit should be based on meeting the following criteria: 1) substantial contribution to paper concept or design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or reviewing and introducing fundamental changes in it; 3) final approval of the version to be published.
All persons designated as authors and co-authors should meet these criteria. As co-authors of a paper there should be identified all persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the work reported, and who therefore share responsibility its content and results. Authors should also appropriately recognize the contributions of technical staff and data professionals. All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship (e.g. financial support) should be listed in the section “Acknowledgements” (financial disclosure). Editors retain the right to request information about the contributions of each person in writing the article.
Authors should also be aware that the following phenomena are the examples of scientific misconduct and must be avoided:
Ghostwriting -  a substantial contribution to publication has been made, without revealing author’s participation, or without being mentioned in the acknowledgments enclosed to the paper.
Guest authorship (honorary authorship) - the author's contribution is insignificant, despite of declaration.
A group of co-authors should jointly make the decision about the order in which their names are given. During manuscript submission, the submitting author must provide contact information (full name, email address, institutional affiliation and mailing address) for all of the co-authors. The author who submits the manuscript for publication accepts the responsibility of notifying all co-authors of the manuscript being submitted. The corresponding author must fill in and sign the Declaration of Contribution (in case there are two authors or more), which should be submitted together with the manuscript.
All detected cases of scientific misconduct will be documented and the appropriate institutions and entities will be notified.
2. Sources of data and ideas
Authors are required to faithfully acknowledge and identify the contributions of other persons to their reported work as well as clearly identify sources of both data and ideas. Authors should cite all publications that have been important in the development of the submitted study and that will guide the reader to the earlier researchers that are essential for understanding the present analysis.
Authors are required to make reasonable and diligent efforts to find, and then accurately cite original sources and publications. Authors should only present as reliable either personally verified or peer-reviewed sources of scientific data and literature.
Authors must not engage in plagiarism or self-plagiarism. Plagiarism is verbatim or near-verbatim copying, or paraphrasing without due modification, of text, data, or other material containing results of another person’s work, without explicit identification of the source of such material. Similarly, self-plagiarism is replicating of the author’s own previously published text or results without acknowledgment of the source. Exercising care for publishing only original research, editors of BEH are committed to deterring plagiarism and self-plagiarism and may use special software to screen submitted manuscripts for similarity to a previously published material. The manuscripts may be screened during the whole editorial cycle, including the submission process and until the final publication in an online form.
3. Duplicate publications
It is prohibited for an author to submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research to more than one journal of primary publication unless it is a resubmission of a manuscript rejected for or withdrawn from publication.

II. Quality of Published Work

1. Comprehensiveness of research and publications
An author is required to organize his or her paper so that it provides a well-rounded description of the examined issue.
Fragmentation of research reports excessively consumes journal space and unduly complicates literature research, therefore authors are expected to avoid it whenever possible.
2. Conflicts of interest
Conflict of interest is a situation in which the process of research and publication may be corrupted or its results may be biased because of some other interests of its participants. It may concern any one or more of the participants of the research and publication process – the author, the reviewer, or the editor. Conflicts of interest may occur for financial (e.g. employment opportunities, fees or other compensation arrangements, beneficial ownership of stock) or other reasons (e.g., personal relationships, pursuit of academic career, intellectual passion, political involvement etc.) that can reasonably be expected to influence motivations or results of actions of participants of the publication process.
Conflicts of interest constitute a serious threat to the integrity and objectivity of both scientific research and publishing. Therefore best practice for authors, reviewers and editors alike, is to avoid conflicts of interest situations whenever possible.
All participants in publication process who are in the situation of a conflict of interest must disclose this fact. Of special importance is that if the original research study reported in the manuscript or the preparation of the manuscript was supported by one or more grants, the title and number of the grant(s) and the name of the institution(s) that provided the grants or financial support to conduct, analyze or write-up the study, must be specified in the manuscript.
Editors of BEH may use information disclosed in conflict-of-interest and financial-support statements as a basis for editorial decisions. The corresponding author must either notify the editor at the time of submission that there is no conflict of interest to declare, or fairly and effectively communicate all conflicts of interest, which will then be acknowledged in the published article.

III. Reviewing and Editing

1. Reviewing
Business and Economic Horizons is a peer-reviewed journal. Submitted papers and short communication are evaluated by independent referees or Editorial Board members specialized in the article field. Paper reviews evaluate submitted material’s scientific significance and novelty, define it’s accordance to general journal profile, scrutinize its content for compliance with the journal’s publication ethics. After the refereeing process is complete, the paper may be rejected, returned to the author for revisions, or accepted for publication.
2. Editing
The authors are responsible for the contents of their paper or short communication. Editors may request an author, when considered necessary, to elaborate on the content or technical details of the paper. Scientific editing might change format and correct the writing to render it compliant with the editorial policy of the journal.
Pictures and graphs are a special subject to editorial consideration, as their quantity should be optimal and only necessary in the content of papers. Pictures, graphs and textual content alike are subject to ethical standards concerning authorship and integrity. Additionally, whenever images are included in accounts of the research process or results, or in data collections, the author must provide an accurate description of how the images originated.
3.Retraction or/and withdrawing of reviewed and published articles
The peer-reviewed and published articles cannot be retracted or withdrawn. If the article was officially submitted and accepted by editors after screening and reviewing, the withdrawal and retraction are not possible.  Accepted articles assume that our experts and reviewers could not identify problems with merits of a submitted article. After the positive initial screening and double-blind reviewing, every article is assigned with DOI.
However, editors do understand satisfaction concerns of an author and usually ask for describing the problem for further reviewer's examination and discussion. So, the one possible option is that it can be possible to make changes within the reasonable shortest time after online publication.  Another option, an author can write another article which should provide the follow-up review of errors/mistakes in a theoretical research or empirical model in the previously published article.
For more details please read terms and conditions which you officially accept when you send your articles to the editors' emails. It is a responsibility of an author to read instruction, conditions, and terms before the submission of an article.  These terms make retraction or removal impossible. Only editors and publisher make decisions after receiving the article regarding rejection, further update or publishing.
Information regarding the retraction and withdrawal conditions are available in the following sections of the core official page of the journal:
- the section "Publication ethics"
- the section  "Terms and Conditions"
- the section "Guide to Authors"