Journal of Digital Market and Digital Currency

Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement

The Journal of Digital Market and Digital Currency (JDMDC) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and upholding the integrity of the academic record. All parties involved in the publication process—authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher—are required to adhere to the ethical principles outlined below. These guidelines are developed based on the COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the COPE Core Practices.

1. Authorship and Originality

• All submitted manuscripts must be the original work of the author(s) and must not be under consideration or review elsewhere.

• Authorship should be limited to those who have made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the research.

• All listed co-authors must approve the final version of the manuscript and agree to its submission for publication.

• Any reuse of data, text, or figures from previously published work must be properly cited and disclosed.

2. Conflict of Interest

• Authors must disclose all financial or personal relationships that could be perceived as potential conflicts of interest.

• Reviewers and editors must also disclose any potential conflicts that could affect the impartial evaluation of a manuscript.

• The editorial team ensures that reviewers with known conflicts of interest are not assigned to evaluate a submission.

3. Peer Review Policy

• JDMDC employs a Single-Blind Peer Review model, in which reviewers remain anonymous to authors while author identities are known to reviewers.

• Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.

• Reviewers assess manuscripts based on academic merit, methodological rigor, originality, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

• The peer review process is conducted fairly, objectively, and within a reasonable timeframe (typically 4–8 weeks).

• Reviewer feedback is shared with authors for possible revision, and final publication decisions are made by the editorial board.

4. Research Involving Human Participants

• Research involving human subjects must comply with internationally recognized ethical standards such as the Declaration of Helsinki and follow institutional and national regulations.

• Informed Consent: Authors must include a statement confirming that informed consent was obtained from all participants, specifying the format (written or verbal). If verbal consent was used, approval and justification from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) must be documented.

• Anonymity and Privacy: Identifying information (such as names, photos, or personal data) must not be published without explicit participant consent. Anonymity must be preserved throughout the publication process.

• Ethics Approval: Studies involving human participants must include the name of the approving ethics committee and the corresponding approval number. If ethical approval was not required, authors must clearly explain why.

• Sensitive Data Handling: Sensitive or personal data must be securely stored and de-identified. Authors are expected to comply with applicable data protection regulations, including GDPR or equivalent national laws.

5. Retraction and Correction Policy

• JDMDC is committed to maintaining the accuracy and integrity of its academic record.

• Articles will be retracted in cases of proven scientific misconduct, plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical research involving human or animal subjects.

• Errata may be issued to correct minor errors that do not affect the validity or reliability of the work.

• Authors, readers, or third parties may report concerns to the editor. All allegations will be investigated according to COPE procedures.

Duties of Reviewers

Peer reviewers are essential to ensuring the quality and credibility of JDMDC. Reviewers are expected to uphold the following principles:

• Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential and not shared without authorization.

• Objectivity: Reviews must be fair, unbiased, and supported by constructive feedback.

• Expertise: Reviewers should accept only manuscripts within their area of expertise. If unqualified, they should notify the editor and decline the review.

• Timeliness: Reviews should be completed within the specified timeframe (typically 2–4 weeks). Delays should be communicated promptly to the editorial office.

• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest (personal, financial, institutional) and withdraw from the review if such conflicts exist.

• Citation of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant literature not cited by the authors and notify the editor of any overlap with other published works.

Duties of Authors

Authors bear primary responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of their work:

• Originality and Plagiarism: Only original works should be submitted. Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, is strictly prohibited.

• Data Integrity: Authors must ensure data accuracy, validity, and availability upon request. Data fabrication or falsification constitutes misconduct.

• Multiple Submissions: Manuscripts must not be simultaneously submitted to other journals or previously published elsewhere.

• Authorship and Acknowledgment: All who made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors; others may be acknowledged.

• Disclosure: All funding sources, affiliations, or personal relationships that may influence the research must be disclosed.

• Corrections and Retractions: Authors are obliged to promptly inform the editor if errors are discovered and cooperate in issuing corrections or retractions.

Duties of Editors and Section Editors

Editors and section editors are responsible for ensuring ethical and transparent editorial processes:

• Editorial Independence: Editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit and are not influenced by commercial interests or institutional affiliations.

• Confidentiality: Editors must keep all manuscript information confidential and share it only with individuals directly involved in the review and publication process.

• Fair Evaluation: Manuscripts must be evaluated impartially, regardless of authors’ race, gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, or political beliefs.

• Conflict of Interest: Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where conflicts of interest exist, such as prior collaboration or personal relationships with the authors.

• Peer Review Oversight: Editors ensure that peer review is rigorous, timely, and respectful, and that reviewers are appropriately qualified.

• Handling Misconduct: Editors must investigate ethical complaints, authorship disputes, or allegations of misconduct and take appropriate action in accordance with COPE guidelines.