1. Scope and General Principles

SAJGIBE is committed to upholding research integrity, publication ethics, and an accurate scholarly record. Allegations concerning submitted manuscripts or published articles will be handled fairly, objectively, and on the basis of evidence, with strict adherence to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). An allegation does not, in itself, establish misconduct. The parties concerned will be provided with an opportunity to present explanations and supporting evidence before any editorial decision is reached.

This policy covers allegations of data fabrication or manipulation, research finding falsification, plagiarism, undisclosed duplicate/redundant publication, authorship manipulation, peer-review compromise, and non-compliance with ethical requirements regarding human subjects, corporate data, or field research participants. The journal also addresses allegations of undisclosed conflicts of interest (such as commercial gain or corporate funding) and other practices that compromise academic or publication integrity.

In business ethics, global management, corporate governance, and interdisciplinary studies, legitimate differences in interpretation, analytical approaches, theoretical frameworks, or managerial/scholarly conclusions do not constitute misconduct. Evaluation focuses on the honest use of corporate and empirical sources, accurate reporting, appropriate attribution, and the overall integrity of the research process.

2. Reporting Allegations

Authors, reviewers, readers, institutional representatives, and industry stakeholders may report suspected misconduct through SAJGIBE's official contact channels provided on the journal's website. Reports should clearly identify the manuscript or article, describe the specific concern, highlight relevant passages or materials, and include available supporting evidence, such as comparative source materials, documents, datasets, or verifiable links.

Complainants are encouraged to provide their contact information to facilitate clarification. Anonymous reports may be considered if they contain sufficiently detailed and verifiable information. Further clarification or evidence may be requested before a formal assessment commences.

3. Initial Assessment

The Handling Editor conducts an initial assessment regarding the relevance of the report, the adequacy of supporting evidence, and the potential impact on the reliability of the manuscript or article. This evaluation may involve comparing corporate documents or empirical datasets, examining submission records, and consulting experts in business ethics, management, or corporate governance.

Similarity-checking software (e.g., Turnitin) is utilized as an assessment tool. A similarity score alone does not establish plagiarism; the Editor evaluates the context, the nature of the duplicated text, citation practices, and proper attribution.

4. Clarification and Opportunity to Respond

Where sufficient grounds exist for further examination, the Editor contacts the authors or relevant parties to explain the matters requiring clarification. Authors may be asked to provide raw research data, survey responses, interview transcripts, corporate documentation, ethics clearance approvals, evidence of participant consent, or other relevant supporting materials.

The parties concerned will be given a reasonable timeframe to respond as specified by the Editor. Additional clarification may be requested if the initial response is insufficient. Failure to respond does not automatically establish misconduct, but the journal may proceed based on the available evidence.

5. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

Reports and assessment materials are handled with strict confidentiality and shared only with parties whose involvement is essential to resolving the case. The identity of the complainant will be protected to the extent possible, subject to legal obligations and assessment requirements.

Editors or editorial board members with a conflict of interest must recuse themselves from participating in decisions concerning the case. If an allegation involves an Editor, responsibility will be transferred to another Editor or an independent party appointed by the publisher who has no conflict of interest. Independent expert assessment may be sought where necessary.

6. Institutional Coordination

SAJGIBE is responsible for editorial decisions and the integrity of its publication record. Investigating institutional research conduct or researcher behavior may require the authority of the relevant academic or professional bodies. Where a concern cannot be resolved through editorial clarification or requires a formal investigation, SAJGIBE may contact the institution where the research was conducted, the authors’ affiliated institutions, or another competent regulatory body.

The journal may request investigation findings relevant to the manuscript or article. Editorial decisions will consider available evidence, responses from the parties concerned, and institutional findings. Nevertheless, the journal reserves the right to take independent action to protect the scholarly record when sufficient evidence indicates a compromised publication.

7. Interim Measures During Assessment

• For Unpublished Manuscripts: The journal may suspend the peer-review process or hold publication until the concern is resolved.

• For Published Articles: The journal may consider issuing an Expression of Concern where serious questions about integrity or reliability remain unresolved, evidence is inconclusive, or an institutional investigation is ongoing. An Expression of Concern informs readers of unresolved issues without making a definitive finding of misconduct and will be updated once the assessment concludes.

8. Decisions and Follow-Up Actions

The journal’s response will reflect the nature of the concern, the strength of the evidence, and the impact on the publication record. Possible outcomes include:

1. Closing the case where the allegation lacks sufficient supporting evidence or has been satisfactorily explained.

2. Requesting revisions to, or rejecting, an unpublished manuscript.

3. Publishing a Correction (Erratum/Corrigendum) where errors can be addressed without undermining the overall validity of the article.

4. Issuing or updating an Expression of Concern where serious issues remain pending or unresolved.

5. Retracting an article where sufficient grounds exist under COPE retraction guidelines.

Retraction serves to correct the scholarly record and does not automatically imply intentional misconduct; unresolvable fundamental errors also warrant retraction. Retraction notices will explicitly explain the reasons for the action and be linked to the affected article. Retracted articles will remain accessible with clear identification of their retracted status to preserve the publication history, except where exceptional legal circumstances mandate complete content removal.

9. Communication, Documentation, and Appeals

SAJGIBE securely maintains records of reports, evidence, correspondence, and decision logs, with access strictly restricted to authorized editorial personnel. Relevant parties will be informed of progress and outcomes to the extent possible without breaching confidentiality.

A party wishing to challenge an editorial decision may submit a formal appeal through the journal’s official contact channels, providing explicit rationale and additional supporting evidence. Appeals will be reviewed by an impartial editor or committee member who was not involved in the original decision. A case may be reopened if material new evidence is presented.