•  
•  

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

At Markets, Globalization & Development Review (MGDR), we are dedicated to upholding the highest ethical standards in publication practices, and we expect that all submitting authors and reviewers will adhere to these elevated standards of publication ethics.

Editors’ Responsibilities

Editors possess the authority to accept or reject articles, ensuring a rigorous evaluation process. They assess manuscripts based on intellectual content, disregarding factors such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). Confidentiality regarding a manuscript under consideration is paramount.

Editors must declare any potential conflict of interest, and if perceived, another Editor takes charge of the submission, selecting referees, and making decisions. This protocol extends to situations involving submissions by Editors, authors from the editors’ institutions, or those with close relationships, thereby possibly creating a perception of bias. Transparency is maintained throughout the handling of submissions.

The editorial team is responsible for upholding publishing ethics, which includes enforcing strict policies against plagiarism and fraudulent data. They are committed to publishing corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies as necessary, and prioritize intellectual and ethical standards over business needs. In cases of significant inaccuracies or fraudulent content in a published paper, prompt corrections or retractions are made after appropriate investigation.

Authors’ Responsibilities

MGDR charges no fees associated with the processing of manuscripts or the publication of materials.

Authors are required to guarantee the authenticity and originality of their submitted articles, ensuring they are not plagiarized or republished from their previous works. Explicit noting of multiple publications derived from the same research and appropriately disclosing hazards, conflicts of interest, and financial support are essential. Authors must verify the legality of any copyrighted material included, obtaining necessary permissions for reproduction. They are accountable for preventing harm to participants in their research and ensuring proper anonymization of personal details. Additionally, they should provide a funding acknowledgement when relevant, disclosing all funding sources for their work.

MGDR is a peer-reviewed journal and mandates authors' participation in a double-blind peer review process. Authors must guarantee the authenticity of all submitted article data and confirm substantial contributions from all listed authors. Authors are also responsible for retractions or corrections and should have manuscripts reviewed for language clarity, grammar, and spelling, especially if English is not their first language.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

In the double-blind review process, both reviewers and authors remain anonymous. Reviewers, chosen for their expertise, assess submitted papers alongside the editorial staff. Reviewers play a crucial role in editorial decisions and manuscript improvement through objective and timely peer reviews. They must maintain confidentiality, avoid personal criticism, and identify uncited relevant work. Reviewers are expected to disclose conflicts of interest, ensuring unbiased evaluations, and keeping privileged information confidential. Their evaluation includes checking for prior publication, methodological soundness, clear presentation of results supporting conclusions, appropriate bibliography, and a significant contribution to the social sciences.

Reviewers use a scale ranging from acceptance with no revision to rejection. The decision by the Editors based on reviewer feedback and editorial assessment, along with reviewers' recommendations, is communicated to the Author. Editors make the final acceptance/rejection decision. Authors trust that reviewers will not plagiarize their work or steal research ideas and expect objectivity, no conflicts of interest, identification of relevant uncited work, and confidentiality in the review process.